to the effect that he could resell his interest in plainsboro holdings and the focus of our papers was that the documents that mr moore read and sign stated quite the contrary clearly  that he read those documents thoroughly understood them he signed the subscription agreement there's no issue there now there are of course circumstances under which they play different justifiably rely on or has a relationship of excessive dependence on the defendant then perhaps he may not be found by those contrary written representations but those are very far from oral representation that the security can easily be resold if you have repeated written representations in the offering materials that it cannot be resold and subscription agreement which is the document i was just going through it's at the top of page eight of that agreement and the private placement memorandum at page is roman numeral two or two little eyes i should say and one that says the same thing that the investor is not entitled to rely on anything but the writing but the subscription agreement was signed by mr moore than just about anybody ever levy had about fifteen securities brokerage accounts in the past ten years prior to the time that he made this investment relatively arms inthe relationship with this broker as well  but he wrote down the results trades on as affirmations an account statements he was paying attention to this he was not relying excessively on his broker at a relatively arm's length relationship he was wealthy and the written materials state in any number of different ways you're going to be stuck with a security for a long time you should not buy the security unless you can bear the risk of it for an extended period of time there is no market for these securities no market may develop etc so i think they cover the waterfront pretty well with that he was at the very at least and i'm not certainly the best i can do is knock out that thirty thousand and then knock out another fifty thousand for the double recovery if you wish i can go through the  is part of the case the other factors are number two existence of long term or long standing business relationship and number four i'm going to try to take them together and then separately  like to discuss them together for a second because they appear both to be directed toward the relationship of the pendants were not that the plaintiffs may have on the defendant and here it was not so great again the parties and never met each other and mr moore was an experienced investor he had dealt with brokers before he knew how to say no he did say no on occasion and there was to their customers and at the trial from script pages five forty eight and five forty nine and at best the part where we objected to some of the jury instructions regarding fiduciary duty several cases were cited to that effect fairly specific representation but fairly covered as well by the written materials now i'd like to move greece leaves since i only cause additional damages they can only allow the supervised person to commit damages and it's not supervised person and we committed one hundred twenty one thousand dollars in damages awarding the an additional fifty thousand dollars for allowing that hundred twenty one thousand dollars damages to occur it's plainly a double recovery it is recovering more than the jury found the amount of plaintiff's injur and this one which is that a search for the fundamental basis for the cause of action for the holdings was not even discussed in the stewart case and really when you  acknowledge that fact and i read that case very carefully it is a fundamental flaw and a fundamental distinction in applying that case to this decision and certainly if i had seen as it would have been cited because we would have been c twenty one twenty zero zero one subsection through contradicting or negating the importance of any information contained in a prospectus or other offering materials was an attempt to deceive or it found in favor of my client also no i think this is an important distinction between our general cause of action of the state security act and this particular plan which is generally speaking you do mr more testimony absent the records and stuff like absence of record eighty seven eighty eight testified directly that he said i don't want to participate in this because it's not liquid i can't sell it  n that private placement memorandum or other offering prospectus then they have committed fraud i think that that would i think the question is posed in a common law setting is a more difficult one it's one that has been decided in and circuit court case aside if you by the defendants that are state legislature has chosen to disagree and in acted or  because it is true that clearly in any given situation the fact we may fall one way or the other what our state decided to do was to allow investors in the same situation as my client to present their case to a jury to have them if you are the evidence and then have them make decisions as to who was lying to whom the representations and you would be a more sophisticated investor than my client i think that the jury's job is to assess the totality of an individual plain experience and his presentation and credibility in his testimony and the credibility in first money of the defendant and to make the decision as to what is this relationship why there's also evidence on the record that mr meyers had managed to make the morse quite a lot of money on trade in u s treasury bonds and you know making something a lot of money on something is a good way to gain their trust and of course the defendant failed to disclose the fact that they were jacking up the commissions and earning far more than was justified on the surface passage because under u s treasury bond confirmations commissions are not disclosed so there's a history  this relates relationship whereby the defendants gain the trust of my client by having made them some significant money but all along they were misleading and lying and there was substantial testimony about the u s treasury bonds well it was paramount when you say paramount what you mean well i mean i would not subscribe to it unless you said you could sell it and again why did you find a statement that you could sell it for you credible well i would have thought he would have liked  going to buy it because i can't sell it he's telling him that mr meyers and then in response mr myers says all that i can sell it for you i can i can dispose of it for you so he hasn't hidden anything from the broker he has engaged in a direct conversation with mr meyers where he says that i don't want it i can sell it but he signed a document saying you are not wrong here i think i am totally but he's just the next it's just been explained to him why he doesn't want to buy anything that he can sell so the person who was selling it to him knew his state of mind i don't want to if i can't sell it and mr meyers responded i'll sell it for it don't worry about it because the absence of the statute in this decision provides i think an underlining environments for that court in this decision where it does not recognize the public policy provision in the subscription agreement is not necessarily dispositive it's a page two seventy four so basically what i hear sort of the underlying theme of the question is that it is becoming the be certified to the states for a court because then we're just running through the trucker making another decision which would be subject to an appeal i mean if the court feels that there's a conflict here which should be resolved i would suggest that if the done it's terrific ation t we had a jury maybe it shouldn't have you know stewart's case you don't go to a jury but here the jury considered all those factors opposing counsel was referring to all the testimony all things that relate to those they factors were presented to the for the wealthy you know a wealthy victim should not be penalized and have no remedy for fraud simply because he's wealthy the law should be equal and should be applied to protect everyone whatever means usually are or course are concerned about i'm actually is the justice for the poor but in essence this is a reverse of twelve oh you've made a substantial sums of money through the course of your life you run for money and you have a four million dollars