credibility as a witness nobody said notwithstanding the fact that she's an interested party in the case from a biased perspective i still believe her yes that's what that was about he wasn't talking about her interested would use off yusof was the two children are of the of the property and had been along for a long time before this dispute arose well as if this was something that was concocted to create jurisdiction and that was the titular owner and he was entitled to bring a lawsuit even though he even though he held the diamonds for the benefit of his door actually of honor that that but the point was the agreement that was long before any lawsuit well but the point was that the evidence submitted my legs are had no knowledge of use of somebody meant in this case until two thousand august two go below eighty three fifty two three fifty three three fifty four three fifty five three sixty one three seventy cents and also three ninety seven these are  the stage s date has had other children and they wanted to in fact one of the documents that i started he was with do was said don't talk to children because absolutely but the evidence is pretty calm it's very concrete the mark the diamonds were put in pinnacle of eventually i would agree for the benefit of the lane and harris but just because someone's would take in an estate does not mean that they're the plaintiff proper plaintiff for jurisdiction l purposes and that's where the the the logic fails yes she was interested in i'm not going to read the quote but judge suite who we know has been on the bench was for a very long time with his young age of ninety four when he tried this was very clear and in his decision he said that pinnacle loaned it merv you own it and then and then and then it was of on and there was a motion by the way not only was a decision an order an opinion but then there was a judgment and then there was a motion statement that the daughter is interested nama son there's a there's this argument which was raised on the reconsider reconsideration motion that there is no jurisdiction the bottom line is if that it's if that if this court determines that he beneficiary findings and that was the basis of it on page two of his findings of fact actually the first sentence of his findings of fact that having considered testimonial evidence in conjunction with the admin and exhibits it's found that although alina as harris's widow is an interested party she was a straightforward logical incredible witness so it was in that context that he made the statement yes he did any goes on he says her testimony was confirmed by the adieus documentary evidence  subsequent events by contrast lazaro was not a credible witness respect to the understanding reach with harris concerning the diamond seditious so he didn't nestle rule directly your point on whether or not there was diversity jurisdiction but his statement was just that i and you're go interested i believe her to be much more credible that's all he said there as far as the other issues go you are counted and spent time on and i'm going to spend a minute or less on it the bottom line is that in order to overturn the factual findings by the lower court there must be clearly erroneous standard and there is a plethora of reasons why the court below determined that the two thousand and twelve inventory evaluations one by appellant one by appellee were more properly than the two thousand the pages of the m and tories eight to sixty three as the i'm in tory prepared by elena harris said she discussed at the two thousand and twelve meeting and it and she discussed market valuation and then as well as a two three which prepared by did lazhar presented to harris and never disputed which also talked about the valuation of the of the diamonds runner for those reasons we asked at the quarter from the lower court decision did was this was the fear on the stock in the two companies or he personally at the end and you don't challenge any factual findings that the district court