your briefs we've looked at the record and you have limited time this morning when it is your time to speak it should feel free to go straight to the art of your argument you can not need to educate us about the and be mindful of the clock when when when that caught expires when your time expires it's time to wrap it up but if you're answering a question from the court feel free to finish your answer even if extensive a little bit farther do be mindful of the clock our st case this morning is archer versus america's st federal credit union  archer we're going to hear from you st but brooke book for what we do i wanted to give you a little bit of a perspective i'm only speaking for myself this morning but i wanted to tell you something that concerns me about the case and give you a little bit of a background of what concerns me is so so we have an issue in this case as you well know issued that the district court ruled on about the statute of limitations whether an expired whether there was actually tolling the statute of limitations but there's there's also another ground on which we could doctrine of rest you get caught means that when and the same parties have a dispute about some facts or some transaction between them that they really have to bring up all the issues about those facts and bout those transactions in that office and they can't split those between different courts and different complied with despair a law or not so you can certainly you should feel free to address any argument you want to dismiss or ning but i wanted you to know at least where i was coming addressed or not it was something that was raised and is still being raised here the credit so now will begin your caught my name is louis archer this is my wife sheree archer we are both appellants in this case and i'm representing myself and my wife sheree compulsory counterclaim or not if it's an argument you know volves the same facts or transaction the same basis if it's an argument or a claim or a complaint or a counter claim i it's any of those kinds of things you could have rates in that takes against the same party and at the end of the day a final judgment was entered and and and you lost you don't and state and maybe you would have liked for him to have done that in federal court eventually you have a federal lawsuit about it but the fact is that that state court and so you really only get one bite at the apple two to make those kinds of my comments and they were they were made or some of them couldn't and maybe they are and that case farm for for two reasons farce statute of limitations and equable tolan is not warranted in nd even if the court finds that tolling is warranted is as just prior mentioned waveriders rescue all four elements of rescue the kaaba are present we have a judgment on the merits and that judgment with a formed on appeal you know by courts of competent jurisdiction we have the exact same parties in both cases for the rd elements and that in for the for the th element the same calls of action element as as judge prodder mentioned rescue calda includes everything not just what was argued but everything that could have been argued in just a review of the record shows that every step of the way starting with the answer and all the way through the appellate brace they were already doing in the state court action that the credit union bottle lated federal law including rest of in some of their complaint in this case is literally pretty much a cut and paste of the arguments that were made in fact that were raised in the state court so under the poll and don't think it is it is clear that under the rescue the common this all four of those elements are met and then in addition to ground that that that i haven't even mentioned that's in our brain is what you've argued this w  to when and the arguments were made there and they made them again oh and you've responded to the charge are so sometimes district courts ruled on one ground but the party so far gave well even if that's wrong there's this other reason why the court could still be affirmed and we have to consider that i see your honor in fact i would bring up the fact issues once you read the supreme court of alabama and and they responded by saying he needed to have raised a compulsory counterclaim and he didn't and therefore that's not something proper that was properly before the supreme court of alabama and the point is i think now even when you were represented lawyer in the trial court in the state courts and the circuit cour