. >> i can't find anywhere and if mr. renny is in the audience and there are other people here, i cannot find the admission charge and there are a lot of sections to this and maybe i am missing it. >> 1060 g. >> g. >> okay. let me see. gone. >> g1. it does say entertainment. >> yes. >> so technically all of the entertainment needs to come to us. if they are offering entertainment. >> they need to be licensed otherwise there is nobody looking over how loud the entertainment goes and the out reach and that sort of thing. >> that is why we are here. >> i disagree and let me tell you why i disagree. and so, g, definds what entertainment is. >> k, however, definds what a place of entertainment is. so that is different. a place of entertainment is different than what entertainment is. and reciting poetry could be considered entertainment. but, up to, give up a premise for a place of entertainment and what are we talking about what is entertainment? is actually k. now, i may be totally wrong and i may not be understanding this. but, >

senior counsel rennie tyrell said there wasn't a single scrap of paper to prove thomas barnes contention that he had the consent of lines to use their property assume security. he said mr burns defense appeared to be that they don't he says home or not once not twice but about ten times. it was preposterous bizarre and absurd. he said. every other single piece of paper completely contradicted his story. he said that noah did not allow him to use the defence of duress in this case. despite his claims in the witness box that he was pressurized like john kerry to take out loans and even if the jury believes and that the banks knew or didn't care that the properties with double mortgage. still didn't get him off the hook. it was packed plain and simple the jury should have no difficulty in finding him guilty. but defence counsel david called and said there were cracks in the prosecution's case was no evidence of forgery new handwriting expert at getting th. they're made in a paper trail to agreements with clients. but maybe that's why they want to hide secrets from the law society and from their families. mr called and said why the defence of duress could not be used by th