misunderstood it is clear that this case meant much more to the executives than money because they refused to accept an offer to settle the case of one point three one moment they're not either apparent authority or actual authority what you went through those certainly  can come in the form of express or implied authority or apparently already now apparent authority email that's been referenced several times where they the clients told of attorneys just settle this case we don't need to be had instructed them and discussed with them throughout many years of the case were included in that settlement i was beyond money the attorneys made it very clear in their testimony the nov two thousand and seventeen hearing what effect the complaint didn't ask record i don't believe that's a bar to requesting any type of relief in a settlement negotiation what evidence you have that these equitable conditions is or demands were made other than the documents submitted late in the day well the is that those declarations were appendix there are numerous references to them saying yes we discussed these issues because that was numerous times throughout this case they agreed with that they didn't deny that fact it was raised with them constantly issues about harassment from town officials following the may two thousand and thirteen incident that they had raised concerns of them pop the fact that one of the officers was still working for the town that they had raised concerns about the fact that this press statement still existed online and had never been corrected so there is i mean i suppose you can agree settlement but i'm not sure you can even do that without the knowledge of the opportunity of a policeman to object to that saying no no no you can't terminate judgment in this case but that doesn't preclude them from requesting those things in a settlement a party certainly can't demand an apology a part of a judgment in a case but they can certainly ask for one or to settle it and back the court should encourage parties to find unique ways to resolve a we say it's an abuse of discretion here where there's a factual finding at issue whether or not there was authority of the attorneys to enter into this agreement and the exact wos who painted obviously a very contrary picture of the testimony of their attorneys that were held them up did not testify we're back here it's kind of the last case they opted not to testify they were given opportunity existed five they were given opportunity to hire counsel they didn't do either we don't agree that they were given a reason why opportunity to do those things they learned about the hearing that was going to take place on november third twenty they did two days later on october twenty seventh two thousand seven hundred they submitted a letter to the disc to the magistrate requesting additional time reasonable additional time not an indefinite adjournment so that they can obtain counsel they appeared at the conference which at that point had been a you know i'm sure it's an accurate portrayal of the logistics here they dismissed of counsel four months prior to the hearing if there's a four month interval they could have interviewed attorneys and there was everything to suggest in the record to them as pro se would since that nothing else is going to happen in this case until this motion was decided and it was remanded back to trial as they have requested or settlement was in force what about the case management where they received in july the case management order that indicated case closed no case dismiss this case made an order which you look at this water i mean or speaks for itself as a whole bunch of dates telling them what's going to happen there were a number of indications that they were going to have continuing conferences with the judge but there was no indication to them that they were going to have a proceeding at which testimony would be given their former counsel be called to testify they'd be forced to cross examine their own former counsel and put their own testimony on that's a much different thing than appearing at a conference to discuss the pending motion what else could they possibly pursue i'm sorry i don't know what else could they possibly proceed other than this motion is going to be heard and ultimately decided well they certainly understand understood the motion was pending will be decided but they never understood that there would be a live hearing at which testimony be given they had submitted opposition and paper but they had received it an automatic response from the clerk's office back the motion be decided on paper unless and until the court said otherwise the first indication of that otherwise to them was on october twenty fifth twenty seven hundred sixty seven business days before the hearing that they were going to be asked to appear present their own testimony and the most difficult thing cross examine their own former counsel without the assistance  ok and so they did there was no question as concerns your honour's mentioning of the state walk versus federal i was interested by that request for supplemental briefing and i do agree with counsel of the turning decision of this court should establish started before that when the stipulation was entered into with the authority of their attorneys that they would not have to appear for depositions but they'd agree not to testify at trial and that they'd agree not to present any expert evidence at trial of any permanent physical emotional injuries were talking to them the whole time we were communicating and then after that until the next conference and issue they it was a firm we were still talking we were trying to settle the case once the stipulation of them not having to appear for depositions after evidence other than that which their former attorneys present the document they got they had it actually garvey and that there was a desire to settlement and that these after the fact of request would never conditions and  terms well i mean if you use if i you're representing me and you said i've got a really good deal for you on money and i come with you at you with something very irrational i don't want just a minute i want you know the sun the moon the stars and you're going to hate am it ain't going to happen you can have it but at that point i haven't given you the authority have i correct that there's no evidence of that happen the evidence is in this bill that that didn't happen that those discussions happen in two thousand and sixteen with mr maggio when he went to their house and they were answering derogatory and they were talking about things and he did the suggestion of the p r guy and the surveillance video and things like that because mr as i was on bail condition from a prior criminal charge and that psychiatry just said that he could not testify he would not be able to handle it emotionally and that's when we thought a token settlement any medical proof of any permanence like you have to comment on physical injuries and what you're really saying is that this testimony of the attorneys that has the authority that we had and that there's really no cross testimony at the hearing and clearly here it if there was real to any disputed evidence at the evidence you hearing then maybe it would have been appropriate for the district judge either to conduct a further evidence or hearing to flush out those it to the magistrate judge for further he with instructions but here there was nothing in dispute and then and and through to be honest with you they were there and they tried to cross examine of course their doctors they're not lawyers but testify tell the judge fifteen people and then they didn't want to be right and that's when the attorneys really started getting very strong skill is a significant issue between these two individuals after the fact for which he was charged with attempted murder with wife of his mother and and  so i'd like to begin by referencing counsel explanation as to the reason that is that was entered into a stipulation that they wouldn't testify certainly that confirmed exactly why it is that they needed counsel at this november two thousand and seventeen hearing everyone knew that including the ma and yet they were denied even one opportunity one adjournment to get counsel for months before that there was going to be this hearing right now they only found out about that hearing on october twenty fifth twenty seventeen which was seven business days before that the hearing take place it took was one business a later than that but they knew it didn't have a choice for the day they fired their attorneys for much earlier than i have that's certainly correct and as they understand it nothing else is going to happen in the case and for those motions were decided and that's based on the court court papers that they received in the case the case was closed their attorneys wrote to them in april two thousand and seventeen and they refused to sign the releases that didn't have the terms they wanted and indicated that the judge dismissed the proceedings once both sides informed her of the settlement agreement there is no case pending any longer based upon the agreement they have completely reason wander standing that there would be no live hearing take place where they would have to testify or cross examine the former counsel they have no way to know that until they got notice of that on october twenty two thousand and seventeen seven business days before that hearing was supposed to take place so i'd like to also address briefly there are there there were indications in the record at that november two thousand and seventeen hearing that the former counsel knew about the terms that these echoes had raised of them numerous times including at page ten eighty six of the record where mr obama knew she was being cross examined and he indicated affirmatively that he understood a cease and desist order or stipulation was something that they had been demanding he said yes he said i believe during answer the answer to your question is partially correct so it's not true that the record was completely devoid of any indication that there was that there was a dispute about whether or not these were real terms that these echoes had made as a condition to resolving this case and because of that it's our argument that the district court of used her discretion by not conducting another full hearing at which the executive to be represented to testify could meaningfully cross examine their attorneys to say that the record without that opportunity was devoid of any was devoid of any dispute is simply begs the question if they had been allowed to testify would there not then be a dispute that would need to be resolved and would have to be resolved based on live  that's right and that's the issue of apparent authority i'd like to address a couple things counsel said apparent authority as as this court has explained it is only created in the eyes of a third party who then relies upon that appearance but it has to come from statements or conduct of the