can the court call the case the favor of giving as official background before you get into the legal arguments if you could well the factual background in this particular case without getting into the contract and everything right it starts at eleven thirty am approximately when  and then he left chambers lease now it's not until based on what we understand happened around one thirty couple hours later he said two to three hours later he sees him again on the first floor any notice of me says you know call for support he did none of that yet again then again about one thirty two thirty and then it proximately quarter to three or so we we see again jackson comes up the escalator as he's coming up the escalator used you see mr brown is standing there from the concierge and chambers he's approaching oh he's the supervisor of mr brown he's time that he was going to the woods for he did indicate she first apparently what she remembered is asked for death cation which would be the first thing and then there's no indication that she went any further because you see in the video he apparently it round when you're in a building and he's turned away so he goes down the escalator and approximately fifteen minutes later he comes back again now chambers has left the picture while he's away while jackson's away and  you have your supervisor present and you know her to him cup that that's their handcuffs but why should the security company or the building owner and manager be held to some kind of a duty to deal with a guy who's got a gun says he's got a gun hand says he's got a gun and the security guards are on armed first of all that's their own policy if you hasn't shown to go out and you haven't seen the gun and you know he's committ i'm just taking their policy what they're saying if he hasn't shown a gun a lot of people threaten individuals with guns or whatever it turns out they have a target you don't know but they're both there you have two men you have an individual on the third floor things ha call the elevators down do whatever but he should not be allowed on the elevator whining because our own man was in no post order to provide that things will escalate things were escalate and they did you know when this this gentleman mr know they had the better police and a second four hundred thirty six for they had the east another railroads police the union pacific on thirty six and that's another problem they never coordinated with either metra and they maybe not what why they don't have to well that's a question that goes to reasonable care that the acts are size reasonable care in terms of creating the posters i were but what do they do they have to give that they have a contract in faith that report with a period of two thousand and three one of the reports the other ones on they did so there was prior to this two thousand that had scrapped but when they have it in their contract that they're supposed to in creating these post orders to consult with the owner security consultants reports and they don't give it to him and they don't have ask about it i think that's an issue for the jury it's an issue for the jury did they actually size reasonable care as are required to under the law under the pippin case why don't you address the issue of the voluntary undertaking of the duty on the part of the building as you raise in your briefs and that the duty owed by the security company in the case law related to it well i would suggest  and they would like to ignore their own contract but if you look at their contract the service contract agreement in two separate places they talk about they had a duty to protect people and that's  twice as remaking reference ones under the corporate level expectation to record sight to see one five one five seven where it says their service provider shall provide security personnel and services to  corporate level expectations of the security company and pat is in another place as well on record site c one five one four three where they were to maintain a if he had his yes in his pocket if you're going to escalate up stairs then you're going to escalate up stairs let's go big let's talk for a moment about the case law because in the trial court below and i understand that this is at the novo review and we don't have to give any deference to it but in the trial court below the trial court seemed to rely heavily on a case that the defendants cited called a druce a idea oh s versus vance protective services why don't allow you know that pedro's is not this case this is case is more like pippen or more like cross all the cross you have limited duties because it only went to one o'clock but in pippin pursuant to contract he had persian he case calls for his sort of question of crack for the jury in terms of did they exercise reasonable care in not following any of their posts or assume frankly in looking at this case sad to say that the only  and that the conduct of this i am for madman as they call him was the an intervening cause that breaks a responsibility that they might have breaks the chain well that's probably can be true of any third party criminal act where someone shoots another person you can characterize that person is temporarily insane insane mad whatever you want to characterize him he was a man on a mission there's no i think he was on a mission but deterrence is their job following their post orders is their job the contract said that was their job he said that was their job and they were fully failed on that now if you could to in terms of foreseeability  we we have look at the leak case me where you have an individual in that case who was stuporous and he found his way on to the tracks and he could read english so they said it was a part of for ordinary that their negligence would really lead to their result in order to grant summary judgment or an overly so there is this result is not highly extraordinary we all know that if you don't provide building ability you know they said the fact that the lights flickered on and off momentarily and the assailant he hesitated that was enough to say that it was a question for the jury on the video if you mean instance we have because we have the one before they happen he's turned away i mean the last time right oh well i actually have they start to work away it looks like a fifteen to thirty and he's standing there watching now this ok now let me go for you before you go on what does the records show about the time of the nine one away he's security supervisor if you will use the guy in charge from a b and he's knows he doesn't have an id and he knows he's walking away you know he's either had his hands in his pocket and he's highly suspicious or he's got rocks the way they were you know there were other people in front of them so they were waiting there now he sues them he sees brown abandoning his post welcome to the turnstile he watches that the knowing that it violent act would occur does not make that violent have recently forseeable well i would think if you look to their own preventing workplace violence were twist published in june of two  part it's one seven three o two when they talk about him or jones being gunned down in there was a vehicle in a parking lot for a couple days no one made any inquiry no one have gone up to this individual sit around the car and and said something and then this could have been prevented that's what they see themselves that this this is suspicious i thought oh clearly we have we have mr chambers with this guy was highly suspicious that he was ordering he was lost right by direct definition if he's wearing his trespasser and there are certain obligations that they have in their post or is what they're supposed and then they have to fulfill their duty in the end part of the contract includes the postal workers and that's the duty there's no question they had a duty under pipping case i don't think any case there's no case they will cite where they have a contract that says there to protect people that they said there's no duty there's no case that says as they agree there with i think most of what the law says they may not agree to it they don't agree to anything they they said judge carson didn't even offer an opinion right t this case that you should give told me the strike that mr chambers said two weeks before this occurrence he told jennings you should give the describes code which they did and that was recommended actually in the security consultant report to get a distress code on the injured because of that right they think that was a recommendation that's a question of fact for the jury but the exercise reasonable care and not knowing relevancy colds and not following your security consultants recommendations and men in particular troopers tells plan he's the director security you guys should do to de stress cold i worked with fox over at the fox station he wants to pull me he said there are a lot of failures on the part of the owner of the building they didn't thing that was done in this case was they put a uniform they're supposed to be deterring conduct like this and they put a uniform on you can imagine can imagine if just in any building if this he's there he he's allowed to go up into that elevators or post or say he's not to be allowed in the elevator recall the elevators they disregarded everything and that's why we're here i don't think there's  even it's close in terms of causation the leak case the persian rate case clearly not anything like this if it only had i don't know what was going on with chambers but if you don't agree call the overeaters and  honour's third are two things that i want to particularly address the first is the scope of duty in this case it's a legal issue i realize that we've spent the last half hour discussing the facts of this case i want to get to judy but before i do i want to specifically discuss some of the facts that were raised by counsel particularly as i related to the postal workers because this needs to be very clear it also goes to this court's analysis of exactly what the scope of valid barton's voluntary undertaking was in this case that voluntary undertaking did not include the use of every possible effort to protect individuals in that building from third party criminal attacks and because of that such flanagan's ruling should be affirmed the poster orders specifically discuss issues such as the challenging of leaders the searching of bags and packages and the use of to you whether or not the documents the postal workers whatever you want to call them the rules or regulations here whether they address the possibility that an intruder or an interloper could be armed they do and the guards are specifically pseudonym is that armed guard is you're on their parents job to escort him to the elevator to take him up stairs with his gun know the armed guard is not expected to risk his own life to protect or excuse me to disarm a gunman who is telling allegedly saw mr jackson wandering around the building mr chambers is i mean they're they're working for and that's correct that's correct it if i only point that out to suggest this is not a situation where mr brown encountered mr jackson repeatedly during the day and then mr jackson appeared to decide i think no we have that and that said mr chambers in his testimony repeatedly said if in fact he used correct and he saw mr jackson wandering the building during the day and that's not entirely clear but assuming for the sake of this discussion that that's accurate mr chambers testified mr jackson wasn't doing anything suspicious this is on the first floor of a major transportation center in the city one hundred thousand people who rock through that building every single day mr chambers testified he saw mr jackson mr jackson book last he watched him for a couple of minutes he didn't see anything suspicious and they moved on it's a train station that's probably not a number like we scenario for a was anything suspicious about that mr jackson was doing he says he testified that he observed him but there was nothing suspicious this is on the record that see fifteen minutes seven one two and fifteen seven one three it's in emergency code is intended to be used by radio to personnel to not give the nature of a disturbance in the event of some sort of a workplace disturbance and they are so there isn't a discussion going on over the radio about where a workplace issue or an incident is occurring and that's where the crowds are or are advised in their post orders to use an emergency code at ten that is not to be used as a direct quote there's nothing in the first orders that says when she was approaches brown  recall much information about that but what is important about chambers testimony is that he was specifically asked in his deposition if he would have recognized a problem if brown had said to him emergency code ten and chambers says she wouldn't have you wouldn't have known what we need to hear from you is why did the security company that you represent that signs a contract protect life is did not voluntarily undertake to protect the possibility of workplace violence because it is specifically the scope of their voluntary undertaking is specifically defined by the terms of the contract and the terms of the contract are not simply that allied barton undertook to protect the safety of all individuals and use every effort to protect the safety of all individuals in that building were they supposed to protect they are to use reasonable efforts to protect unauthorized access to the building what happened here and here they use reasonable efforts to protect against an authorized access to the building but here there was a direct threat with a weapon against an arm security officer and that an armed security officer had been specifically instructed in the post orders and specifically trained to use reasonable efforts in conformance with common sense and good judgment but do not use force to restrain people or jeopardize yourself to do so there's training and i know the court has seen the training manuals it is exactly what happened in this case it's at sea level in five one four to fifteen don't be hero physically confronting an attacker or trying to grab their weapon will only risk harm to yourself and others they were trying reined to do in the situation and they followed that training that is not a deviation from anything you have a contract where you are to protect life and the law would suggest that there may be a voluntary undertaking i'm going to ask you a question and ask if you agree with the statement of law they have if a defendant is deemed to have voluntarily undertaken a duty to protect people like tenants the related question of foreseeability is subsumed within that undertaking in other words if we find that there is a duty to protect the tenants in this situation by your client under the contract foreseeability is taken care of once we reach that decision no your honor so you can foresee workplace violence but we're supposed to say that it's on forseeable that it might occur i think  after another judge said that they were playing albertan went into court and said we did not voluntarily undertake to provide a duty in this case and what the but but but there's evidence of it in the form of the patrick you say it says one thing the plaintiff says  says another you can try this case and when you can try this case and lose that's why there are questions of material fact on this issue not about those that the contract says that's for this court to decide that was for judge plan again to decide and she decided it is for us to decide whether or not there is a duty that was voluntarily undertaken in this case that's correct and in order to evaluate the scope of that duty this court needs to look at the facts of the case including the language of the contract and if we find that there is such a duty t foreseeability was not necessarily subsumed into that analysis and it shouldn't be then one thing just to clarify judge because it is a very important point you were discussing just seven the scope of duty as to tenets in the building and actually the poster specifically addressed that as well ellie battens guards were not there to prevent security to building tenants in their space which is where this incident happened  not go to his duty that his duty is defined by the posters and the posters do not say that he should risk his life to disarm a man who is trying to take him hostage with a gun  reasonable a judge on summary judgment or a jury this court makes that decision when it is evaluating the scope of the duty you're asking for too much that that is that this court has already said this crime has already said this is a matter of law to criminal actions is something that's specifically mentioned in the contract you're telling us that there's no voluntary on to undertaking the duty and you can foresee something that could happen but it's fun for c it was a matter of law how does it make sense identified chambers did not testify that mr jackson was clearly during chambers is testified that he saw him those are two different things so there's no issue related to the challenging afraid of this next there's the searching of bags and packages that loitering has only been around for three hours that protect the security and that is are there and that's when chambers approached brown to ask him that question he did exactly that when he noticed what was happening and realized he had seen this individual according to his testimony but he was given to me if that's accurate he claims he saw the individual in the building he approached him more than whatever he approached him once when he was talking to brown and chambers thought it was strange the way he was standing on a ferry and so he having formed the opinion this individual is strange behaving in a strange way then turns around and walks away because he was told by his colleague that everything was fine you're you're saying the same thing what's reasonable to one party may be unreasonable to another and that's why you have juries but that's that is not the jury's job is not to determine the scope of the duty and the scope of the duty can the scope of the duty is that ally better than was required to use reasonable efforts to her without exposing themselves or others to threat of harm and that is what they did here they use reasonable efforts without exposing themselves or others to threat of harm then that brings us to a good point to ask you how the truce case is something that the trial court should have relied upon and that we should rely upon because the did not discuss provision of of guaranteeing the safety of the individuals on the premises essence oranges you have one case where they're out there to protect for property and vandalism and another where the contract says that they're there to protect life and we're supposed to rely on that case this code also discussed exactly those issues in blankenship and blankenship is analogous to this case in blankenship there was a provision in the contract that agreed that a horrific and unforeseeable attack as is read happened in blankenship does not expand the scope of the duty despite the existence of a provision like that even if it's part of is in a corporate expectation statement and who does not only do everything else in the contract weeks which makes clear that you wrote the duties of these individuals the the security guards are to maintain social  business world or at the property without exposing yourself and others to try to harm no other duties are to be assumed or implied by a security officer this is a seat i read been five seventy five it's in their post orders that is the extent of their duty all right i causation cannot be based on mere speculation guess so minds or conjecture everything that has been discussed about read could have happened maybe would have been different perhaps would have changed in this situation is entirely based on surmise and conjecture even the plaintiff's expert has said big profit may not have changed anything if brown who tried to disarm the chamber jackson may not have changed anything if chambers had done something differently pat may not changed anything i believe he paid the odds at fifty fifty but could've happened in this case easily according to plaintiff's experts is there is an attempt at disarming checks and an individual who is just a time in his noted was absolutely intent on have to prove under causation in illinois whether it's cause effect or legal cause plaintiff have to prove every little thing that this man did that they had to foresee that he would do this that he'd get past the guard to get in the elevator that he'd get up matter question of fact is there are hundreds of cases that say the press and that cause is almost always a question for the jury that's absolutely true but not in cases involving speculation guess surmise anyone was even noticing that this was happening because there was nothing out of the london area at that point this individual was in the building along with a hundred thousand other people this individual had had been noticed by mr chambers that mr chambers a trained security guard didn't think he magically and wet ended up happening with mr jackson and there isn't one mr jackson decided to walk into a building with a gun intent on doing what he did and he did it the instruction that the jury has given says that it doesn't have to be the last or nearest course of sufficient if it something that a natural or probable sequence produced the injury complained of and what my colleague is suggesting to you is that earlier interdiction with the suspicious loitering man who have a certain point in time have been told he didn't have the right to be there if something had been done in a material way in a substantial way to get him out of there that may be and therefore probable sequence this never would happen a man that never one  suspicious until the moment he was interacting with brown and i realized i have a heart i just have a hard time with the currents that someone who is in a building like this for hours on going to different places just want assuming places it's not where you're assuming assuming that's all you're assuming that's where he was there's no testimony that he was still in the building there is nothing about that you have the testimony from chambers saying he believes he saw him a say ok we agree with council on that one what about when he goes up and wants to go to the thirty eighth floor and it's rebuffed by a security person by the concierge personnel vende have noticed specifically that the man doesn't belong in the building and what do they do they point to the escalator that's reasonable yes because the man stands at the security desk does it does it for id so it isn't allowed to have stairs and leaves where else would he be instructed to go the security guards he certainly has no point chambers has seen him several times during the past few hours safe so i think you need to leave the building because he did leave the building he walks to the escalator and he left the building  nothing that was happening with that particular individual that would have suggested that he required there as school it out of the building i'll tell you what if if people don't think that he's acting suspiciously i guess i can understand why this would happen exactly what judge lanigan did in this case they work at the contract they look at the scope of the voluntary undertaking as defined by the contract and they make a determination based on the facts of the case i've read is the extent of the duty i would if you rely on majors you're leaning on a river slender we did voluntarily undertake one duty and that was to hire allied barton a security agency and what about this jenkins guy what's his jab and i thought that they were working in concert and they had a report to him and they went over the systems and came to some decisions together seems like they remained on board you know just delegated you know they jenkins job he's the director of security for the building right but in that role ninety percent of his time is devoted to working with different age while force of agencies the f flood control earthquakes fema he's in charge of basically the infrastructure of the building keeping it safe they retain allied barton to man that infrastructure itself so there's a security infrastructure in place and they retain allied barton to man that security infrastructure destroyed and says they're breaking down the door with mr chambers to the law firm when this incident occurred they did contact him because he was in the in the building and he did go up there it was going to be the contract involved that he was only going to be dealing with the allied barton officers meaning that meaning that the home office not the direct officers there in the building yes if he saw something if he saw somebody maybe that wasn't at the post he would contact the supervisor offsite supervisor let them know but then they have some involvement and for the formulation of these post orders and the protocols that the allied burton officers were supposed to follow according to his testimony and my understanding of the testimony the record is that he did not that there were strict invision that either the contract there was a provision in there regarding working with  director of security that was not whether that was done it's not clear but the fact is under no adultery undertaking duty a voluntary undertaking analysis it's what you did or what you didn't do so if it was i they tell you what to do because there's just been a disaster in united states you want to protect you've a building on top of a railroad there's a lot of things that have to be done and they make recommendations and they're not passed on now even mentioned to the people who are providing the security and you just fold your hands and say oh well we had no responsibility those recommendations of your crack the worm a direct right after us this september eleventh incident in two thousand and one and that at some point shortly thereafter within the next couple of years there was a capital improvement program at the building were a lot of those recommendations were incorporated into the new infrastructure so for example the turnstiles system was i would say there are some somewhere yes some somewhere i mean the point of mr powers is that  you have a responsibility that's why you hire these consultants and that you should have followed all of the recommendations or some other recommendations that weren't followed that might have provided exactly what should have been occurring here and there's no to the bit that says that a recommendation from a security consultant or anybody is that you're required to follow it no but you have a duty to inform a b to make sure you you're there playing the best practices i mean that an armed interloper could gain access to the elevator lobby and go up to the private offices and it's the position of your codefendant that they were never informed about that finding and isn't that something that that would consultants that they had had utilize over the these years i mean they've been around to seminars they've done various things so that we're whether they whether that what baker eubanks that's not clear that that was what they were referring to in that contractual provision number one number two is that because it wasn't done there was no voluntary undertaking so that really if you have you have analogy have a contract you have a security director of security who works with the security catch tractor but if he does nothing then you didn't undertake a duty and there's no responsibility well this seems pretty perverse the law is that if you do not undertake if you do not own fairly undertake a duty then you're not responsible so that they never undertook that duty you never did utilize those reports or give them to a b according to the record you know i just don't get it because it seems to me that the people that you represent were trying to do their job as a responsible well karma landmark i mean they were trying to do everything that they could by you know getting consults coming up with protocols coming up with postal workers trying to do what they could to try to protect the public and that has made you say that they have no duty duty to do anything and not only that they didn't do anything well that's not correct because again they took a lot of those reports and they implicate him or they implemented those recommendations into their infrastructure and then at the time that they entered the contract with allied barton they gave allied barton the responsibility of manning that infrastructure and so that contractual provision those those a lot of those recommendations that already that is amended into the infrastructure itself so they didn't do take a further step they don't have to take further steps under the voluntary undertaking it's like in the gulf or such a case the parents say to their son that we're going to make sure that you don't have susan course as well yeah they have the intention of doing it but they didn't do it so therefore we're not going to hold them liable for undertaking theory because it's strictly construed to the extent of your undertaking what about the row case are you familiar with ha everything which the row case was the one where they had a security company that was looking after a building and there was some guy named fennessy who was there director they decided you know it's really we're told you better change all the locks and then they said well yeah but they'll cost a couple grand so we're not going to do it right even though they knew the phones master keys were out there that's what was in the record in the  case i guess i have to study that for your honor i'm sorry but i believe in a case that the land owner understood those keys are out there and didn't take steps to to prevent that i don't believe so i believe the people nothing in the least of us here and i do not believe that i have no protection of anything i believe that the lease provided and i can't be positive i believe that provided the tennis i have there are they have locks on their doors and they were supposed to keep their own space secure so i think if you have to provide security under the lease under the lease i don't believe we have by security like you heard to get tense if you don't have any security though i mean part of being a responsible building owner in downtown chicago or any other city is to let the tenants know that we will have systems in place where you can get in and out and the people who don't belong there won't get in and out and that's what you're and that's right and that's why we retain  infrastructure and having ally security there and that's where we have a disconnect is that we had done what we could to protect this this property here ok we got all three of you just i don't know how you can say that when you've got jenkins retaining control and still being involved and more specifically he was involved in working with them in formulating by the contract formulating these post security and doing all of these things and so the owner obligated its director of security to work with a b in developing security manual post orders and assist the director of security in developing number one number two it was not it wasn't done ok there was a no voluntary undertaking here so they didn't follow their duty they didn't do what they were supposed to do and advocated to do under the contract that the entered into with their security counter you know because allied barton it's alabama's duty to assist the director of security in developing many of days security manual and post orders and utilize the recommendations by the the property security consultant so if they  place the wife services as you said at one point that ninety percent of his duty was to deal with these other entities and agencies what about the other ten percent of the temper sent was to manage the relationship with allied barton on the counts whether they were being paid whether they were things like that between the upper echelons of the company cell wasn't as if he was working with the security guard says jenkins during jake is was in the building doing ninety percent of the other job  during the day so he did have duties in the building but they were not doing the man security which they had a contract with allied barton ticket i just think the problem they have is that specifically in the catcher act you're saying we're still involved you have to report to us you're the experts for hand but you have to report to us we have to work on getting these posts and protocol orders together and we're still in the quote game and that it may be an unfortunate word but that you're still going to be involved that's the way the cataract reads and since it does it's hard for me at least to understand how they have to snatch equate to evolve voluntary undertaking of a duty to protect even though you did bring in a contract but because it wasn't done because we never voluntarily undertook the duty i mean you were supposed to but you didn't so since you didn't you're not liable just as the parents and in the bell case they had said were going to take away that that all they never did it and therefore they were not told why so if i'm going to extend your reasoning to a b and b has a voluntary undertaking in this country for the protection of life on other things if they just it's not that we weren't obligated to do it under the contract and therefore it's just it's not something that we voluntarily undertook the would you agree that your claim control the security program at the building no we did not control i don't know where they're getting that from jenkins testified that he did not have any role in that when he had responsibility when they had to hit the man agreed to do something whether he did it or not is a different issue now the question is the whole case well you didn't do a response to i mean that's they were met with that that's the case but there was no duty for us to do that that's why you see right through with that's what they say that under the agreement with a b there was a duty that's what i would just read that was to used to use reasonable efforts and everything that the plaintiff's case boils down to speculation i mean yes you could say that we don't know what they had a gun when he was standing there and he threatened mr brown with a gun that well he could just kill his way all the way up to where he needed to be thank you thank you he'd contrary to what council said it does provide access control and building security consistent with that provided in comparable buildings so it isn't the words  our case to provide protection to people but they said they assumed to do the once they looked into the fact that master keys were out they were aware that they looked into the cost of replacing the locks and they said well twenty five hundred folks like rather good people or crystal would despite the fact i'm like on a case there was no contract to in fact it was the opposite the same as the plank in ship case that they had no obligation to pay he said despite that contract they assumed a duty then they had to provide reasonable care and his result the supreme court in roe said that that's a fair question for the jury not for us in respect to the agency issue so that's clear on mr matthews point on despite the fact that the owners commissioned these consultants reports there wasn't an obligation to in discovery in this case so for them to suggest or others that's not a record they didn't produce any other consultants in particular or any other security consultants there were not so of record it was baker you bates and crow for for talk about this first district being the second highest rated for crime and i see one for five to nine the summary of threat assessment they talk about number one of those workplace violence including potential interest personnel on one four or five three or that about premises liability that they should make sure they follow the recommendations and that's a jury question whether or not they but all the crime records are in the bank or baker from eleven thirty on that he did nothing but walk away i can't then we can i just it's inexplicable it's but it's clearly for a jury to determine what was on his mind why did he do it if it's i just i don't causation and you talk about forsee ability they talk about the purpose of the point of the post or of their manuals the key to religion a crisis his preparation difficult situations situation has a potential of becoming a crisis when one of more of the fine occurred says the situation may escalate and intensely to a more serious problem in nearly every crisis situation  staff security guard receptionist tenet service coordinator engineer will be the first to come in contact with the crisis in nine out of ten cases the initial the person's initial response will determine the building success or failure in dealing with the crisis thus it is very important that each member of the team carefully understand his or her rule here and we talk about the ordering being a trespasser we and the lack of understanding i know there's been some confusion regarding the distress signal goes council said if he had gotten it the he called ten when the man a thing to him to chambers he would walk who just walked away i think that's incorrect it's all he had to do in this case you had expert with this is it testified that there were something like twelve or thirteen different areas of negligence that in expert's opinion was a cause of what happened here right it's correct it's and i'll ask you to wrap up at the end of the day it's what it's what chenny didn't send in jennings said it was there they could have shut the whole readers down and he admitted had they shut the our readers down jackson could not have gotten to and we will take a number consideration and issue an opinion directly rich