understand your argument what i think we asked you to address was whether or not the appeals bond properly included attorney's fees to might be incurred on appeal and can i find you objected to the bond on that basis in the district court i filed a one page document because i had filed a notice of a case sion and i was out of the country for three weeks excuses aside excuses aside is it that one page document that you think objected to the inclusion of attorney's fees on appeal yes it's never mentioned in that one dollar page document which has three bullet points so is that a specific enough objection is that a specific enough objection to preserve it for appeal probably not i don't recall i don't think you did so so from my perspective we're trying to figure out whether or not it was clear error for the judge to include those things in the judgment and so i'd like to hear why you think it was sell sorry yeah the irony here is that the judgment itself was defective on its face and and since the motion for bond for the bond was made prior owner i understand no that but i was trying to verse on to you that particular question i don't and it was i'm not worried so much today about why you failed to do it that's a separate issue the question is we it is clear that you never did object on this basis and so since you didn't under our case law we can only reverse what the judge got if there if there was plain error and so i'm trying to find out what your argument is why it was plain error for the bond to be constructed the way it was law on that particular issue either but it wouldn't make sense logically for a bond for ups and then judgment it would be reversed because of the fact that it would it would be reversed in favor of the defendant it would be no reason for that ok so something again i don't want to put words in your mouth i'm just trying to understand your position your position on appeal is that the bond was defective because the judgment was defective correct correct correct and that's your only argument on appeal as to the bond  attorney's fees and costs can be awarded in this case because the counsel for the plaintiff was not following the rules of professional conduct and there was no professional cooperation  no longer in effect but the twenty two thousand dollars bond was granted that order for the bond was granted prior to them on an occasion of the nd judgment that's what i'm concerned that's what i argued  and profession cult what we have here is misguided who is a licensed attorney working for a session which is not a professional corporation it's not her it's not a partnership and it's in complete violation of all the state of california professional on standards and without a licensed attorney representing a comp any they choose it's invalid a points for any attorney's fees to be a wart and that's of course my arguments and the state bar rules have been set forth in my brief that's was my nd argument about it ernie's if you're down for about thirty seven seconds you want this court that before we even reach that issue we must address the threshold issue of why this court should deviate from the longstanding well settled rule then an argument raised for the very st time on appeal shall not be considered i legally understand we understand that but how about on the how about on the actual merits of the real nub of this issue which is under the way are defined as part of costs so that they could be part of the out necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal i understand that the course question now here is how does the eighty eight define cost vs attorneys and in such a case attorneys because here are defined  that that statute says the costs including an attorney's the a d a says something slightly different it says you may recover a reasonable attorney's fee including litigation expenses and cost costs and so there's a there's an understanding that there's a cost and then there's attorneys the eighteen language rethinks that reads rico and in the st circuit the court has found that that type of language so essentially lon's attorneys that said that and all i could find was in the as a published opinion the seven circuits decision of webber's james which came to a contrary conclusion are there any published and i know there's a couple th circuit member that come to the same conclusion as the seven circuit you have any authority dealing with the a da that says that attorneys fees are part of costs i do not your honor and the clock up to one minute so that you don't you don't have to speak as fast as possible go ahead thank you thank you i just want to respond at the statute has to be read as far as the rule seven cost in attorney's fees has to things going back to the validity of attorneys fees i still think that's in the extremely important issue it relates to the standing and the be the requirement the litter recover attorneys these are the st place and they can be brought up at any time and then the both counsels and this case both counsel this case will be submitted and will move on to the final case on her or argument kalyani today rob versus basara