this to the claim breach of contract if i served discovery asking for the tax returns of the defendant for the financial records of the phone and for the financial records of its owners those are not relevant to whether or not being breached their contract terms of noticed a lawsuit is the notice of our quiet when we find out that we've been wrongfully harmed by these trades versus when we actually learned of the transfers how they were done to whom they fought for whose benefit they were doing els that these two gentlemen never intended to perform on this contract without going to with them they induce me into buying these twenty watts to paying the amount of cash upfront that you paid and that they had never the ability or the intention of the proceeds of the sale of the property in order to pay off their other business and personal best there is nothing in his testimony that even gives a hint of that he thought he was the victim of two people who lied to him in entering into a contract that's what his really initiated the start of the running of the stage or limitations the evidence of the court focus on mr mehlis to us knowing would suggest that the statute of limitations began to run with the filing of our case in two thousand through on the contrary that the two are reasonable real person that you should look at this and determine whether or not they're going to fleece the corporations pick the me that he's adopting my argument the issues are the same that's why he's not  that's not going to happen you believe and there are two basic judges cowley and judge ward and are we to tell them how by this decision or a decision that we make that they can't remember anything that happened in the in the previous citation following that proceeding but the record consists of all the planes leading up to that point plato's counsel talks about this being some new transcript good insights a case in presented to the trial judge it's not even in the record here that i don't hold or i got involved in this case after the record has been filed and so forth first thing i did obviously was review the we see that mr walker had plenty of knowledge to trigger the one year statute of limitations and by the way it's no question that everybody's in agreement that the transfer issue is in two thousand and six when the sale o of the two point five million dollars sale and then we have the money this transferred out to pay all these debts but all that's laid out on the contract and we mr or mr that contract it lays out exactly what's going to happen here and mr moss knew about it early in two thousand and seven it down only talks about the properties that are being sold and this was a huge deal the whole thing was three even if even if they could slam the wrong title they say it doesn't matter whether this one of the bases that the judge were logical but the judge made it very clear that he knew which transfer they were talking about on after the after the transfers in may of two thousand so we had discussions between plaintiff's counsel and mr roth off and mr may take off all of this was because that seems to be another issue that there was not there was a motion for turnover in supplemental proceedings but in the actual litigation they never sent to a man for fraudulent transfer they did he said that he was planning on doing that or he was considering doing that i think actually the proper procedure would have been for you to judge or he could have got a judge when he said himself mr roth that he could do it within forty five days you know this thing went on for years and years continued existence or no question about that it continued existence of this defendant for many many years the settlement could have been enforced in two thousand ain't the judge even dismissed that one point because the judge said look what's going on twelve six months after the hearing cultural or that transcript there's no reference to any such testimony this phone the statements that are found in the transcript by the trial judge when he made his ruling in february two thousand and twelve and this is a question this case was not hurting cain county and where are scientists now where it might have been heard by one judge in them because it changes sign it's the supplementary proceeding goes for nothing generally there are two judges in police and they can bring judges in from other you know other counties in ruling that is not referred to in the judge's ruling or ever referred to in any of the proceedings that led up to that he doesn't make mention of it judge perry has been there for all these proceedings for all these years that he knows what happened he knows what discovery didn't happen i mean i think that's pretty obvious no discovery was on this issue well you know that that wasn't part of the the hearing on the supplementary proceedings to my to my it wasn't obtaining but i didn't have a right to it as the plaintiff in a breach of contract case because there was a business transaction involving the schools and all of the other businesses where they were selling assets and paying off debts to say i need to know about received answers maybe we were superseded objections is contention that they would have been properly objected to and such an objection would be a call it's all speculation that's all of them at what you're maintaining no matter what  his statements are largely accurate with respect to my clients to infect obtain a turnover of that assets which were the sole remaining assets of the the actually where the roads are located in a row my client subdivision th