and i thought well ok i didn't really get that they didn't tell me why i mean there's a judgment it's been appealed it seems to me they should have to oppose it so i don't know why they're not here or not opposing it's kind of on there maybe some questions from the panel but you have anything you want to add to your briefs if i may first of all i'd like to bring the court awareness to the fact that there's a motion pending as well to reconsider an order we needed to augment this file to bring in case materials from eight another case there they were going to let it let the merits panel which is you decide at issue so i just want to remind the court we did do that but that's i have my motion here but you may not have it up there but all it does is it connects up some of the substantive decisions and motions from one case that were relied on in the other and i hate to sound confusing about it but that's why i needed the other one in here what would happen was the court in this case number the trial like to point out that i find to be sort of the central point of this is that we would argue is the trial court's decision stated i don't think the intent of the attorney general's office and the defendants was to settle cases and then still get sued for case b which you know ordinarily in settlements of course you do a universal settlement and that that normally makes sense did make that finding and i would just submit that under the case why we cited jeff di verses and rest you apply contract principles to the settlement agreement the settlement agreement which i personally was involved in my declaration is in here as well on that issue i filed that with the motion it actually states that it applies to this case not because there were not there were multiple after cases it is true as the trial court says that they're related in the sense of the same kind of events he had a bad wrist they weren't taking care of that there were things he wanted them to do but i think for example counsel on the pain issue it seemed to me that it was completely settled and if you could look at his odyssey is in a segment of time he had a specific segment of time that he sued for in the first case the pain and suffering that he suffered because they did not take care of his arm and then when that case is pending it takes a long time you know it's going a long several years there are more transgressions he files another case similar transgressions different period of time now the what happened before this doesn't agree that the second case was pending before the settlement that's why we put this so i would just like to point out what the damage claim that wasn't it is true that the pain problem got solved by our agreement you know on a going forward basis you know he was sent to u c davis they did do all that stuff there was actually some there was a rocky near but we got there and the good news is it did kind of solve that but there's a whole segment of time that that didn't undo you know i was a historical fact i would just like to say that you know it's a contract issue you read the contract if you know parole evidence rule we all know that rule if the contract is not ambiguous you don't step behind it and try to wonder about the parties intentions you just read it and use it says what it says the ordinary language school that's actually an issue of california largest state law and the question is on the contract it's that c t seventy seven page to it that there's a handwritten note in this case and that was initialed by myself and the later claims well the reason it wouldn't is because there's still a time period that he suffered damages for that he would not have received say that thirty seven five that the monetary thing was for his suffering during a period and then the other case was for a different period so this didn't take care of that suffering it made a mechanism to make it so it wouldn't happen again going forward so i'm just saying that that chronology is such that there's a whole segment of time where they violated his rights and he did not get his day in court on it i'd also like to point out to the panel that the interesting that when they did the motion they did not file the declaration of the attorney general deputy that was with me on that case and signed this agreement i don't know why they didn't do it but if we're going to get into issues of intent gregory walston was his name he and i worked this thing out you know a lot of work on that but it resulted in i was a good thing when they file their motion  it with another attorney general who had nothing to do with that case and just kind of authenticated the agreement i didn't really disagree that that was who we look like to the extent the court wants to go behind the court in the four corners of the document and look at the parties intent the evidence that was my declaration explaining we wrote in this case meeting this case and not in the other case and they don't really have anything coming back at that they don't say oh no that's not true i remember this you know mr frank i was talking you know we said all cases they don't really have that what they have so i would first say we shouldn't go behind the four corners of the document we should just look at the document read the plain language and apply that would be my first position but if you are going to do that then the state