be reversed for at least three reasons first the district court applied and heavily relied on the burns and berger cases which this court over rolled on bach and later second act four and properly ignored or disregarded as a declaration in opposition to summary judgment which this court and united states versus stein said a district court cannot do that the district court failed to resolve reasonable inferences in favor of mismatch the court in slater stated that the court look at all the facts and circumstances of the particular case so so let me ask you this just as a factual matter here even though the decision comes before slater is there really any material inconsistency was later i mean it looks to me as you read the record but he is referring to kind of facts and circumstances he's talking about motive and whether a you know was designed to make a mockery of judicial system and you know we've got a post slater case weekly versus just sticks which sort of sets up like this one decision before slater then comes later but we look at it we said we don't need to remain first a slate or determination because it looks to us that this is kind of good enough  what is agreed upon by all parties is that that it was mistaken that if denied it in their answer they submitted documents and evidence that contradicted that allegation in their motion for summary judgment declaration contradicts that something in the complaint then they answer and then there's this absolute about face in the district court says looking at all about stuff i would call it facts and circumstances looks like there's a motive looks like this was intentional i understand that your honor slater certainly says the inconsistency alone and enough got to be more and it seemed like the district court here even though acting before slater sort of anticipated slater and said i'm not resting on the  facts in this case indicate and i say my time is out all the facts in this case indicate that mrs smith did not know at the time she was employed and during the pendency of her bankruptcy case that she had behind it all if she did not know there was no failure to disclose and there was no mistake there was no misleading the court and judicial stoppel wouldn't apply to begin with starting time is that what can i ask you this what about on the retaliation issue if you get beyond the prima fascia case you know they've said look there's a there's a legitimate concern here about exposure to our work product and so you know we've got to kind both of these issues focus on intent judicially stoppel was their intent to make a mockery of the judicial process and with retaliation claims are the actions claimed by appellant jenny smith the result of a retaliatory who was manipulated by anything she did it was a chapter thirteen bankruptcy with a plan that called for a hundred percent payment of the debt your client didn't rely on it because they the bankruptcy element the bankruptcy representations are not the sole reason that we see judge proctor in his analysis finds that her claims are stopped with respect to the bankruptcy issue he notes that she derives a benefit because she did not accurately reflect we're not arguing that this is like a chapter seven where there is where the creditors would have been defrauded the distinction between the thirteen and seven that's laid out the slighter case is very helpful and drawing the distinction but as this court noted  still when we're looking into thirteen there is a motive on the part of the plaintiff or the non disclosing party to deceive and that's where judge proctors opinion really gets into this court's later analysis out  are i think part of this it's a two part answer first it goes to judge proctors opinion suggests that where he was finding was that there was an intent to deceive his court as to the plaintiff's knowledge of whether she had claims and put the defendant on knowledge of them  complaint with the subsequent subsequent one filed or the said quietly filed affidavit is an understatement plaintiff has taken two diametrically opposed positions on the question of when she became aware of the complaint but where the second issue goes i footnote twelve within slater because in footnote twelve this court noted that even if the plaintiffs testimony about mistake is uncontroverted the district court is not obligated to accept that judge proctor engaged in an intensive factual i understand that but if the bankruptcy if the bankruptcy court did not rely on the misrepresentation hand between back and rest for this is the type of meeting that this court urged lawyers to have in the sayer's case before filing certain actions as members of the bar were held to a higher level of civility and we should be talking about these things the undisputed evidence is that neither kenneth haynes aleisha hangs their hands and hands as a group told mr saxton to go to this meeting and say anything about counter claims they authorized their agent to go to this meeting and discuss the issue of judicial  which is what he did now he may have taken other actions and that's one of the reasons this case is it's kind of odd on the one hand on the star in that the plaintiffs argue that they cannot be bound by the actions of their attorneys an agent but when we get to the retaliation claim they do about face and say that they plan it or a party is one hundred percent bound by the actions and ted of their actors but the difference here is there's no evidence that when mr sampson discusses any type of potential legal claims or theories that could be advanced by the defendants he's acting on the direction of his clients so there's no way to infer that those actions came from the intended the planet or the defen third party who makes a decision because mr parker's presence within the group on the list or would affect the clear geology and purpose of that the actions by the defendant were solely to report to that group hey this lawsuit has been brought against us you need to remove us from the lessor at which point decisions were made the record is unclear as to whether it was by the board or mr sherrod his testimony equivocates between the two and it testimony  decision there's no indication that a retaliatory intent on the part of haynes and haynes led to the terminations of mr parker's membership in a thirty three member collegial group that basically exchanges e mails about the status have mr parker removed but rather so that she could comply with the guidelines and that she could be removed from the us or this is why judge proctor infinite five does a really good analysis of the distinction between direct evidence and things that may be well aware that this court precedent on direct evidence sets a high bar because the evidence has to express the retaliatory intent of the actor and that is simply not present here thank your hon in the special concurrence and slater one stated system pleadings however whether or not under oath are of no concern rule eight day of the federal rules permit inconsistent pleadings and in my view equity would not countenance a judge made roll to negate that feature of rule eight what the district court here did is he negated the feature of relate he also negated the feature of rule fifteen that permits pleadings pleading amendments as a matter of right which is what happened here planted i don't know what it was made your honor i don't i wish i did the bottom line is it was incorrect but what i do think does show willfulness is the fact that these are experience plaintiff's employment attorneys that she's working for let's not forget that haynes and haynes are experienced plaintiff's employment attorneys and when mrs smith did go to them and say she was she chose to forgo overtime i think that that goes to one of the factors that slater requires we determine the district court way which is the sophistication of the plaintiff it is obvious from her e mails she didn't know that she could not choose to forego part time obviously if she thought she could choose to forgo it she was not aware she had a claim and let's not forget that was one month before her employment ended and i am out of time