the movie papers and i guess i'll reserve most of my argument for a bottle and kind of summarize with the statement that in this case it not that transaction violated the securities law they did not fractionalized the interest they did not buy the oil well they did not do anything other than purchasing their own name a fractional sell which is what they did under their contract they said we'll buy seventy five percent we'll buy for thirty five percent of what you have traction allies and then we own it and then what they do with it then you have to then i realize that  under the securities laws so if you buy a hundred cars with the intent of selling each unit to the general public and you sell those units to the general public each unit in and of itself is not a violation of the securit transactions and then you have other that like the safe harbors argument and the the protections under that that's why the trial court made an error you can't without analyzing each individual transaction to see if it know i don't have that information before me and be in a safe harbor is a site where thirty to thirty plus with a million dollars you know limit there's these limits that were discussed that was kind of a peripheral issue to the court but there were other things that the court did not that the court has whitewashed gary grabbed well had never violated it had never been under a restraining order and he was given a search here penalty he'd never met before the court he'd never done anything it was whatever the government requested is what they got the the trial court did not analyze the transactions they did not analyze the evidence they never ruled on my objections to the evidence which were in the thousands of pages i submitted copious objections to the evidence again here saying trust or didn't even look at it they didn't rule on it it was a stand up fifteen minute you're you're out of here there was no discussion there was no analysis it was no anything this is not units and if they could not buy the entire block then they would only be charged for one percent unit so they were purchasing one percent interest and one after another in the soil ventures and then they w everything together to get this aggregate amount of three million dollars there were four to six projects and they were with different ventures different people different individuals that was another area that the court did you have to look at each venture on its own to see  the car dealership five six car dealerships each car dealership has a different contrast to a lot of legation with general motors purchased so many cars per year if they don't purchase general motors can say well if you don't purchase words we're still going to assess you this much money per car where you're still going to purchase this much money per car and that's what they did they were given they were they were under a contract with the operator who fractionalize the answerers they had a contract to buy that many interests they didn't have to i mean it's like the operator game a way out the saying we're not in breach of contract if you don't buy seventy five percent or if you don't buy ten percent but we will arguments as they bought a block seventy five percent which calculated out here is three point one zero three point six million dollars in six adventures with different operators and therefore they violate the paid less than twenty five percent and we have two choices as the operator has two choices we can take the money that you've given us and will conveys that percentage to you ninety one percent increment will just give you that percentage would be no reason for an operator to be conveying in one percent units they weren't selling to if they were trying to unload as much of the deal as possible out of these people you know block alternatively we'll give you thirty more days you can try to come up with some more money but that's the unambiguous contract provision in each contract is similar you can buy  the offer and the operator said we didn't know what they were going to do with it you know it was possible they were going to sell it as provided for new green but we didn't know what they were going to do with it and then the defense turn around and they use cold calling techniques just all the stuff out the door people t the defendant would receive this block and then they could do what they wanted with them and what they did was they turned around and split it into one percent increment or in some time smaller than one percent increment and they sold it and that was exactly precisely the type of speculat and then it says the payment by a non operating work is working interest owner defined as the participant will be sufficient to pay his share of the cost of the leases the management the drilling and completion of project well to really live in a way to forgive one so that th drilling the well and then you have him saying explicitly all the money is going to go into drilling well and in talking to go to the operators and the operators make the money you're paying is going to be enough to pay for drilling the wells and i talked calculated into turnkey contract it turns out that it's not enough then the operator is going to keep the difference and this is the way the whole thing if it's going to have a couple of pages in our brief around page eleven we kind of put together a different language but the language that i've quoted to me is unambiguous of all p view that i mean this is a little difficult to say thirty percent is a fraud but people's hands are hard i don't think you tell somebody you can use it you think it's basically a question on force of discretion right if you tell somebody's going to put all your money in a well and you don't you threw out all of our evidence they haven't proven that they fit into the exemptions because they didn't offer any evidence they took the bit that mr gregg will filed an affidavit but it doesn't say anything about the sales practices that we felt was you know whoever would buy did we do we engage in gentle solicitation you didn't defendant's documents and the undisputed and the undisputed evidence carries the case and there's no prejudice which is not a short answer to your question but that my answer documents dealt with many defendants not just my clients and what they're saying is that there were cold calls made there was this they had documents where nobody testified as to what those documents were nobody often exceeded those documents they were calling mostly people that they had talked to in the past that they had customers in the past they called their customers there's these were individuals that had operated in other business entities so the call call thing is just is is speculation and so there was some call calls i don't even know that we never got to that we never it's what the f c c contends and i as i stand here today i would have to say logically i might have been cold it matters because one of the elements one of the violation of the f c c laws if they if they engage in that cycle conduct and it and it goes it goes to whether or not they then exceeded the limits or they under the safe harbors rule and so yeah it does make a difference but how many close calls do they make what do they do who do they contact was this individual call call that's the entire problem with this case on because let's say he made entirely call costs does that mean that every other thing that was not ruled on by the court is now disputed undisputed what what does one established fact that the f c c presents all calls that means one thing or the other because of what is important is how many call cops and did they make calls to other clients that they had which is the answer is yes people that they had on their list before so the cold call is