we're familiar with the background so let's get right into it right your colleagues on the other side of the court room found or making and pressing very strongly decide arbitration when that's for the arbitrator that's the very thing they're saying it's not so that's what i'm trying to get you to meet i'm trying to get a meet head on their search that no there is no arbitration agreement anymore twenty fourteen kicked it so it doesn't help you to say well that's an issue for the arbitrator because that's just rocking around the question does the twenty fourteen agreement or not cause it to a complete  would be able if they said you know all pet of us who ever heard of this thing are going to come in little finger small blood on the paper and have a sea of clergy from every religion stand around us and say and here us we're we we rejected two thousand a green it is no longer exists we don't want to be bound by it it's this brand new agreement and there's no arbitration that no matter what we said your position would be wait a second in two only in one direction how clearly somebody speaks in the other direction ignore it because once upon a time they said something different if you have any case brought all to support the assertion that you can never get  completely be evading the argument that you're getting from the other side so let's assume for the sake of discussion here that the argument you were presenting with the argument that was in your brief ok you actually could get out of one of these things if you so said something clear enough wh two thousand and eight agreement well i mean just don't you have to also ask the question about when you read these two things together two thousand and eight two thousand and fourteen this is the conclusion the effect of the two thousand and fourteen agreement certainly has worked on the two thousand and eight agreement that that's right and so if that's the case why is it that the defendants here are not correct when they said look we deliberately put this no superstition clause in the two thousand and fourteen agreement the two thousand and fourteen agreement is by its terms  obligated to give power to the two thousand and eight agreements arbitration to me and so there's a lot in your eyes question that i'd like to try and take it piece by  piece you know give power to the two thousand and eight arbitration clauses where that question before the court is whether that clause itself has been notated just as you wouldn't give power to an arbitration cause when the question before the co is whether the parties agreed to that arbitration cause why is that why are we why shouldn't we be looking into national railroad to give us guides on that very question because otherwise you can you know confess i'm sure th first instance is two thousand and eight and we didn't agree on that and they shouldn't with that why are they wrong in looking at that and saying two thousand and eight still alive but with the question is and that you're not permitted to run away from that you were actually a national rudely and where now you're going about the duration of your agreement in two thousand and eight and that is for arbitrator's not for a court so i'd like to make your points about national  supreme court said in venice that or is that when you have a challenge to the entire agreement in which the arbitration clause sets and that may be something that could go to an arbitrator but when you have a challenge to the would you have the arbitration clause itself circumstances and which way does the presumption go where there is a challenge to be and continue we need assistance we're continuing validity of the original agreement with with all of those as a and then at a later point you raise a question so that so the question the thing group wrestling with is can you defeat clear already by raising a question the new york law which is the operative do your case on how we know us but it takes more of an ambiguity than the way it takes more than throwing some dust into the years you've got to do something pretty clear and definite to demonstrate innovation in two thousand and eight we definitely said we were going on very well and that and if you want to defeat that it's not enough for you to come in and say we've got questions about this we've got an m p and we've got at least  n ambiguity because if if ambiguity beats queery then then you substantially undermine the quality and the fact more betray should cause because these things are come up unless one side wants out by definition these are only come to dispute front of us because one side wants out and if we allowed somebody to get out every time they could say well i've got a question then you've defeated the power going to trace what's your response to that if you read but there is no extrinsic evidence that would solve that then you don't get any farther to screw your evidence in here in this circumstance where it requires extremes again events and a trial to determine the intent of the parties did you answer the question of whether the evidence is clear respectfully no judge crass because the new york if i understand it my friends have been arguing that it's got to be in the text and it's not if the tax is ambiguous that's the end of the that's the end of the  why is it the why isn't it the case that since this was the twenty fourteen agreement limited to the leader lives that the that in and of itself shows the only thing that this is about the only thing to bear in the clip preamble we think that the best evidence of rudd the parties did that yeah i want to get back to the task of the dispute resolution cause and this was brought up by judge cross question to my friend before a says any