the morning when michael bowen i'm here for the helen gurley gang who was the defendant below if the court please the district court granted summary judgment against  herself her brother ciggy and her mother saw you again in there because she had monetize that asset she was there for obligated under that same three way agreement and it was only no response of is or was i don't remember but i remember all the things that were happening in that if this had happened i would remember that that was her testimony that was what he she said a new declaration and that was the evidence that was cited in lieu fifty six counter would have remembered that's correct that's it not let's say it did not happen and i have evidence that i can take to a jury and there's other contextual evidence as well if you look at the cases no memory case just right and that document refers to divorce agreement in which you tear i shares were originally to that we refers to what it is the obligation he has to taking which is limited to the proceeds from the transactions that you're talking about but her undertaking is until i read her undertaking she would ohev of it whether she got thirty two million dollars or one million dollars or whether she was a bag lady in the street i agree that's what it says if you read it in isolation but you can't beat it in isolation even the district court below didn't read in isolation fact she said the opposite she said that ciggy the brother never would have entered into that relate that first agreement with her mother and this he knew for a fact he was going to be getting fifty t v or so all of the money is controlled by him in this case to some of the evidence that we've been presenting to the court to willfully eight letters showing that we now know that all of that money resides overseas in overseas accounts in the cook islands in  inside a family owned business with everybody with everybody contradicting everybody else to try it seems that seems like a really inefficient way of resolving it when all you have to do is to say that it is sufficient is sufficient it is sufficient consideration for one for oneself to release them to five the xerox signature on it with no reference to it for ten years it comes out of the blue in the middle of a litigation she demands two hundred thousand dollars they give notice to us we say this is all in the record we need to look into this is was supposedly just to get back to my opportunity to do because what happened is we said we need to investigate these documents before they gave us any opportunity to investigate whether the demand by the mother was legitimate siggy ganger paid the two hundred thousand dollars and sued us the next day in federal gager testifies on him to be not credible that he falsified documents that he back dates documents that he's defrauded his sister that he's breaches fiduciary duty to his sister we know that the mother has millions of dollars in overseas accounts managed by the brother and have been for years including back in two thousand and fourteen when this demand we hear you  document and let me be clear there was no forgery bear with me for a moment i think it's really important to understand what happened with the district court had before at the initial trial conference orly's attorneys raised the possibility that this was a forgery that it was in authentic they hired handwriting experts who looked at this original document those experts never put in any report on the other hand  looked at it and opined based on the photocopy signature and there is in the record his declaration that it was original furthermore and this is really important first of all in order to be signature is rich because it is well second very few reputable and writing and was well known as to something that is fun because you don't have the weight of the you don't have the flow of it you if you deal with and writing experts they always say give it wasn't her signature and it's this is the part that i really need to get to that this is all they did was criticize the fact that we had put in an affidavit it didn't criticize the fact that you when you look at become an issue because your honor and this is really important because i think somehow this argued has really gotten away from what was before the court because the court was dead right on this there was no forgery defense raised there was no forgery defense raised on the summary judgment motion there was no forgery to a jury instruction submitted for the jury that was to the trial that was to start on december fifteenth there was no affirmative defense ever pled there was no request that it ever be pled and when in the rule fifty six point one statement when siggy stated at paragraph eleven in the second sentence that she has denied the existence of this indemnity and her counsel has alleged an open course of the court as a document as a forgery the response was second sentence dispute it that was that sentence at the initial case conference in the prior case or lee's counsel stated they believe the document was a forgery and would conduct diligence to determine it early counsel hired an expert in document expert to do so but it is unconcerned contested that that expert never put in a report of any sort saying it was in authentic there was no jury instruction ever submit it on the don't have to look at all three in the court was very clear i'm sorry to interrupt your honor but the court in a footnote said she explicitly was not looking at the divorce agreement she did not need to reach it to to interpret a document that basically the allegations are the argument today is based on a record that did not exist if where the district co district work and what is being said now that she never has actually received any money was never argued to the district you're a decision it stands today and the delaware or that says that the trust th at there was no beneficial ownership conferred on her her brother or her father by this transfer of stock in stock has she no no and what what has happened here that the what was transferred the beneficial interest whatever that might be in these shares there is no question that morally and her group which consisted of two creditors and her father and her were able in exchange for giving up saying that there is no dispute is it that it was alleged in the fifty six point one statement did not country do no no no and basically there's a settlement agreement this there is a history to this first the orly as it refused to disclose the settlement agreement from july twenty thirty nine which it monetize that she they told the court that it was irrelevant they also told the court that there are only the feet which she said i won't produce it because it is a where i mean you have no shortage of and i know and for me to read the whole thing nobody hates you have a mom and my co counsel will find the page so basically the judge reversed her end of usually granted that motion to compel but in the midst of summary judgment briefing realized that this settlement agreement was relevant to whether or not she had monetize those beneficial interests and ordered it to be appellant then made an emergency appeal to this court to try to prevent the production court denied that this the settlement agreement was actually produced reading that settlement agreement which is at a five zero five two at sac in the appendix makes it crystal clear that the agreement is an agreement to resolve all the issues disputes and disagreements including but not limited to the ownership of all of the trans resource chairs include and that orley signed this in her individual capacity in her and in her capacity as beneficiary of the trust and that she undertook to thereafter in i think i think this is you know again the issue of what was before the court the consideration argument was before the court was mutual mistake right which is not a subject of this appeal i know but what they'd used is a lack of consideration was in essence a reprise of a phrase of the argument of mutual estate that's not on appeal the judicial a stop a point is not an  and the grounds for what is on appeal it was actually argued before on the consideration and also on the failure to tender the defense you would agree based are different everything you're saying them your honor she you know i understand you know what's interesting i haven't gotten a yes or no it's or from either one of the lawyers in this case as long as i've been sitting here and i'm kind of wondering w your honor i apologize i have tried very hard to answer your case i to answer i'm sorry to answer your questions i mean you had asked for this cite concerning the  volumes and volumes what do i need the number of the documents give me the number of the page he gave you well how do you expect me to find the document if you don't give me the page number you want me to read through was a mention by my absentee that it was some dispute at the time before well if she's fish if if indeed she is releasing a of any interest in something that is potentially worth thirty two million dollars even if it's sharon and you have to assume she's getting more than a peppercorn with you but in this case because the you know the answer is no judge if you look at that document there are there's a half a dozen litigations never mention some of them involve her father not her she's not involved at all the record the though all of this year's eve you know that was supposed to be sent or lease when it we were never you never understand all of these transactions many of which sound to me quite shady by your explaining it right now but let me ask you this and why isn't the fact of the settlement agreement now part of the record that that suggests that your fight was part of the settlement show that she received consideration at least a peppercorn as part of this so that there's is much simpler than that is there any evidence that it any point she held any interest or power to give keep her dispose of the thirty two million dollars a