believe they are under illinois contract law the actions of the district court were erroneous this is a written contract it contains an integration clause which says simply this the entire agreement you can't consider matters outside the four corners of the agreement leave it says you can't consider matters outside the four corners of the agreement but the agreement does not itself have in it four corners the critical date that date is being set by the time when somebody signed it's not errantly part of the agreement my correctly understanding it no your honor i don't believe so so where where in the contract does it say this two years runs from date x the contract says it runs two years runs from the execution date of the right now that's the thing the parties agreed on and then after the parties agree on that language russell signs on some date right right suppose he had put in that document october third twenty nineteen would that be beyond anybody's ability to look into even though it was a date five years in the future no i think that ambiguity about october twenty sixth seemed fifty three so that the only things being waved on your view were back in the middle ages no i think no certainly not so of course we would need to figure out when he actually signed it and what do we know about when he actually should that is in the record although i didn't argue it at the time he signed the his pen was put to paper february twenty eighth two thousand and fourteen and how that came to be right if that's in the record do you do you say we know that or know i know that your honor no rick no no no i haven't i don't want to know what you know or i want to know what the record shows beyond any possibility that i doubt right no material dispute and so i can i could tell you how that issue arose in their reply brief in opposition to our motion to alter amend the state made the allegation that there may have been fraudulent conduct when that happened i called the charity who had previously represented russell his name is william klein he was a trial by remember who was appointed i said mr kline the state has said this it doesn't name you but by implication it suggests that you are somehow involved in the fraud and i think you ought to spread of record the events that occurred on that day so i filed a motion on july first two thousand and fifteen for leave to file it sworn declaration of william kline that's document number forty nine of the district court document forty nine one is the declaration of mr klein he was present when i get the county jail when mr russell signed it and he paragraph ten of his declaration prior to nine thirty am on february twenty eighth two thousand and fourteen i drove to the cook county jail where mike do you russell signed a stipulation for compromise so much in my presence got to the facts in this case i filed the amended complaint now this sounds like i think it's a combination of things one he had been sending these written statements to the prison guards stitches well i think it's more than a year on or he's in a prison this other prisoner a i believe will show had been moved from the psych ward and the other prisoner is yelling for several days that he's going to kill my guy and he  going to stab them in the eye and mike russell keeps writing these protests to it so the guards say this guy's going to stamp me can you move me out of here could move him out of here we do something three written but i don't think i physically care to have that happen to me what right if he had signed it february twenty one fifty nine forty three you have already told me that that would not be binding you wouldn't say well the integration clause means you can't walk past that and therefore the release applies only to torch that occurred while queen elizabeth was on the throw i think at that point your honor if you saw a date that is totally out of whack let's take place take february thirtieth two thousand and fourteen that's what the district court  district court thought that the date was totally out of whack because it was six days before the document was transmitted to now there may be a problem because the district court didn't follow what the actual date was but we need to find what the actual what they actually does in the record it was february twenty eighth that was introduced by me not for the purpose of the terrain the freeman who was introduced by me to set the record straight regarding mr kli also like me was an appointed attorney and but it is there and i don't think it's contested f it if you could be very clear i mean that if it occurred after the accident after a settlement had been agreed upon but before he sign may please the court my name is patrick russell and i represented up a lease sheriff tom dart and cook county the uncontroverted evidence on this record is that the defendants could not have executed the settlement agreement prior to march nineteenth twenty four that's absurd that's the day when the document showed up in the hands of the defense counsel right but we know we judges particularly know that there are lots of things signed in prison the take a good long time to get out of prison that's the source reason why we have the prison mailbox rule and lawyers when they get their hands on documents don't always get them to  that is not clear on this record and you just told me it was clear we couldn't have been signed before the nineteenth writes clear that so that's preposterous we have mr stack who says that it is established in the record beyond any room for debate that it was signed on the twenty eight i was there any contrary evidence i respectfully disagree that that is not part of the record your honor a respondent party they failed to comply with rule fifty six point one additional position by not drawing it to the attention of the judge but the first question we need to figure out is is it in the record i believe by judge the district court judge striking his motion to add barely know nothing respectfully your honor the contract could not be executed until it was signed by all the parties so we're on that ground it's never been executed at all because the only copy we have hasn't been signed by the defendants but what is clear your honor is that is really isn't that true on your view that the defendants could sit on this from now until the next ice age and then decide when they wanted to exclude some of these claims signed it and then get a two year period of immunity reduce the fact the defense view that's hard to take seriously respectfully your honor the parties need is for there to be an effective settlement agreement because otherwise you can't plead release for so if you're now saying that there wasn't a signature by the defendant there is no settlement agreement then you have no release and then the second lawsuit goes forward you can't play this both ways and i'm not trying to your honor all that all the f l these are stating is that the contract was valid as of march nineteenth two thousand and fourteen when a copy was transmitted with the plane we've never and never sime anybody else i believe there was it was signed your honor fifty how come we don't have that in the record the parties were unable to produce the copy aside then we don't have it in the record that anybody other than russell ever signed it right speckly your honor the pure record is what do you b s and your honor the party stipulated that there was a valid settlement agreement and just so that it's clear for this record the appellant like russell submitted his first grievance related to the fear of assault on feb twenty fourth two thousand and fourteen the settlement agreement was was dated in his hand february twenty first twenty fourteen and i marched eleven twenty fourteen there is an internal communication between the attorneys for the epiphanies indicated they had not received any red line edits feedback or other communications f appellant signature until march nineteenth so i believe that the parties could have contracted around the effective date vs the execution date but that is not the issue that's on appeal and i believe it's long health law that a settlement agreement cannot be executed until it's signed by both parties which is had an armory versus the province insurance company and therefore defendant maintain that i'm sorry apple is maintained at the earliest it could have been signed by the defendant polies was march nineteenth and then as to the ambiguity of the contract that leaves us so you you are really saying i'm a say i richard reid couldn't believe you were really saying this but you're really saying that once russell shot the document shows up in the hands of the defendants the defendants now say i can get myself immunity for any tort i commit against russell simply by deferring signing this document and i'm now going to go out and skilling and then the day after they kill him they sign the document and while hot the wrongful death suit is released is that what you're really saying no it is not your honor what i would suggest is what you are saying i just can't believe it up under any theory even of a stop all the earliest the defendants in that scenario could be held to signing the contract is march nineteenth and it's not disputed there's no dispute about whether or not the defendant sign not law can i just take my example right the defendants have this document signed by russell and not signed by th the document says all claims two years before the execution date are released the defendant's position is the execution date is when they sign not when russell signs and therefore it follows that the defendants can commit any mayhem they wish i saw in the document the next day and that tort will be released i would disagree your honor i would say that well it's ok that what is the logical flaw in dare i say it your argument because this is your argument correct your honor but my argument is the earliest defendants put have signed it is march nineteenth and the earliest they can be held it i didn't ask about march nineteen i ask you to deal with my hypothetical you cannot deal with my hypothetical by talking about the earliest being march nineteenth is my hypothetical a correct  and if not tell me why not i would say it is not a correct description of my argument your honor because in your hypothetical it doesn't make room for the fact that the execution date correct or he doesn't say two years before it could have been executed at the earliest it says two years before the actual execution date is what it says and in a in a lawsuit that was brought either the date that russell signs he is the party sought to be bound or it means the date the defendant's respect and i'm trying to figure out how it can possibly mean the date that the the ability to commit a new fort and immunize themselves for it you've agreed with me that that makes no sense whatever but i respect so your argument plugging in the you know the gaps makes no sense whatever i respectfully disagree your honor and i would suggest that the defendants were only able to sign on march nineteenth and would have been bound for by an execution date of march nineteen you're if you're under seven zero for this question i would ask that you affirm the decision that you say mark march nineteenth yes your honor is the earliest could have been signed because he hadn't gotten the agreement yet date the logic of the district court's decision is that once the defendants had the signed document in hand that's the default execution date because the date on the contract was in a possibility that is correct i mean that's how i understand their reasoning that the district court used once the date and then contract itself is shown to be physically impossible and it's the date that the document was conveyed absent proof of some other date which we don't happen this record three are on earth up point there's an ambiguity the air safety case cited is not a political and you have to look to parole evidence the evidence submitted was unequivocal and not contest that there were i really have a little to add i think i'm going to answer the questions that you might have it well this morning one important point sure mr mr russell says that the document on which you're relying is not in the record did you ask us to under rule ten to enlarge the record i did not well the needs just not in the record