may please the court my name is thomas too and i have the honor of representing mr gold before you today there is only one issue before the court today and that is the question of whether or not this transaction occurred in commerce and under the consumer protection act  there is no other issue before the court and it is our position that the the transaction between mr dole and this partners was a commercial transaction and as such occurred in commerce this transaction was one offered to the public through brokers included to purchase real estate included assistance with attaining mortgages on real estate had lease backs agreements whose terms were contained in the non negotiable leaves and included a subsequent loans to them as well one of the issues that  the defense has made in this case exactly but even if they are it doesn't mean that they shouldn't they come outside of commerce's those types of actions that i mean if you define this is not commerce and what are you saying for other accidents the securities exchange commission and the federal trade commission that they don't have the ability if you would like i have no problem with that i would i did request that in our brief that that be done i think that they that fuels is a very very specific case it had a three part test and there was a really good decision by just goods any objects wares goods commodities work labor intangibles course of instruction or training securities bonds to benchers stocks real estate and other properties and in the s but but they are the question is whether it was held out to the public it's not a question of whether it's just tell the public  from i don't know what some of the other people did in terms of the company this filed bankruptcy so that they went through the bankruptcy was my understanding and as well as that they didn't were not able to recover anything the only reason and that would be a one on one and what would have to well i think it would be you know if d i s had a web site and offered this out or is trying to give it somebody or or even if the offer through a broker did against the broker or against my client gives you a hypothetical and i don't know the d i s would have any meaning conceivably it could fall within yeah if he asked for encouraging the brokers to go lie about the transaction to everybody or that there were misrepresentations in the documents went out to everybody then yeah conceivably that would that would strengthen the argument that's not alleged in the complaint the  narrowly i just want to make sure that the court is clear that the transaction is one that whether or not transactions commerce is one the disses offer and that's what the court has to rule on what is whether or not what this was offering through the public there were no longer so and that they were using my client's money to pay back taxes on property which they had not been able to pay more going into default on some of the loans they needed this this money over a million dollars as you can see in order to bulk up and out until after discovery but what's important about this motion it was not just a motion to judgment on the on on the pleadings he filed a combined judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment the same time and all those pleadings were put in all that information was put in  no i think i disagree with that i think that the issue is whether or not this transaction occurred in congress and then and that's what this court did the trial court decided the secondary thing which we never got to love and that's what we didn't get a chance to argue the court below decided that it was not uncommon