i'm going to be brief that and because the issues are very brief and concise they're very narrow for please the court the texas licensing requirements are set forth in the texas insurance code licensing requirements control and apply to the contracts an issue in this case the tamarac access contract and by reason of fact that camera ach ross richard roth did not have the requisite recover under them the parties cannot by writing to the contractor severability clause or anything else contract the way the licensing requirements and i state and sure the license insurance not entirely controlled we believe that it does for the reason for the public policy reasons that it was the public policy behind giving your client the right well your honor we don't believe our client got a free ride apply paid a lot of money to the to the pla locate find examined and provide to access a reinsurance company reinsurance underwriter that was the fundamental purpose of what access needed why should your client get the services that contracted for without paying for the client did pay a client good pay for services but to the extent that the activities that th engaged required a license which was not obtained and the statutes of the state of texas clearly provide rightly or wrongly whether someone get perform work or not the statutes control and they say you're ross testified that he came to el paso texas at least twenty five times during the course of that he did some work from arizona he says but to to perform the goal and to provide the services that he was claiming he was going to provide for our client that madd working diligently to obtain for a texas company and a texas market and insurance product which was to be provided to the city of el paso and other public employees bodies and to secure insurance reinsurance which would insure and reinsurer that product that was the fundamental goal that was the object purpose of these contracts and to do that and he had to have a reinsurance intermediary fundamental public policy reasons for the strict licensing requirements severability does not remove or sanctify the activities which were designed primarily to fulfill the insurance aspects of that contract and we that's where we believe the judge kara was wrong you cannot by severing writing severability clause into a contract saying we agree that this activity may not be illegal we agree that selling drugs is not illegal that does not make it illegal that parties cannot contract the way a strict statutory requirement and or pro activities fundamental difference between acas in this case is that all of the activities of fundamental objective purposes tamarac consummating these contracts and performing and obtaining what he promised our client access that he would obtain was an insurance product to obtain an insurance product to procure it to examine it to analyze it to do all the things that ross that he did required the the contract that was executed in arizona it was primarily performed in arizona and to answer your question it was not twenty to twenty five trips to texas it was approximately twenty to twenty five days of the year that he worked that he also applies with regard to whether or not your client was required to be licensed in texas and that seems a logical yes and so i think i think it's a given that with regard to the license your requirement you have to look at texas now it may say that texa doesn't require because it's not acting in texas but at least with regard to activities where texas does that sufficient relationship to govern it's the texas insurance law that you know what swanson's the supreme court opinion would would suggest you to follow first of all there was never any suggestion ever not in even in the reply brief that there was no compliance with arizona law which would be interpreted the way you stay secondly as your honor pointed out the statute itself and i was going to read it to you but you point out the fact that it says and sure now also going to respond to you the the expert that they had the only person that suggested that there was no compliance with texas law  mr schrader his testimony then volume two december sixth zero one at page one eighty four he opined that a reinsurance intermediary negotiates contracts you would think that the first thing they would have to come in and tell you is we are licensed you're they're not they don't say that you'll also note i think from that statement in the case family appendix that they gave you the judge carol denied their motion for summary judgment on this issue before we were bright enough to tell them that there was a choice of luck last so the issue was decided first of all strictly on texas law and we've told you that even  clients from having to pay consulting fees first of all secondly he said what would happen in this case is if a insurer haney's an unlicensed agent where it shouldn't it may have pay a fine it's not a dramatic world type occurrence i also want you to know one other thing there was no testimony at all that plaintiffs ever performed any acts requiring a license what the attack was was on the consulting agreements mr schrader had opined that he felt there were certain things that the consultants had agreed to do that might require licensing he never said they did them and of course when he was cross examined he indicated that he had not taken into account either the severability clause or the fact that there was a choice of law provision for arizona in summary arizona law applies there's never been an argument that there was this contract with violate arizona law and even more texas law to apply the consulting agreements were in forcible if you have questions i'll be glad to answer them otherwise i'll head back to arizona thank you for i think you thank you and i would disagree with mr class around one point we cited the testimony of mr ross you know our briefs he was the one that testified about what activities he did and did not perform and its history about those activities that governs the issue of the applicability of the texas insurance statutes to his activities and in this case your honor in the big picture accept everything you say with regard to a violation of the texas insurance code i still can't i'm automatically liable why is it the case here that that your client who entered into a contract we're not talking about some ignorant consumer here presumably your client knew what it was doing why shouldn't have to pay the contract  which laws that prevent this case of that particular state texas requires a license and says if you don't have that license to engage in these activities to your kid you cannot be page contractor's unforeseeable it's a strict application of that your honor whether it's fair or unfair in the context here is really not the issue and to the extent that for a period of time the plaintiff was paid well we're not seeking reimbursement of that payment as we stand before this court we did not in the in this brief make that an issue but it it may be unfortunate may sound clearly your honor i think the licensing requirements where they need be insurance for attorneys or doctors or appraisers for schoolteachers for whoever are fundamental public fundamental public policies of the state or the federal government or the municipality that an actual that's where they are enacted and if the ramifications are that you are to have a license but if you don't you don't get paid those are the ramifications and whether it's unfair to one party or another