the court my name is john representing plaintive appellant manual gomez at issue here is whether or not my client consented to a stipulation of this missile with true all of his claims that he filed pro se what happen was four or five different times by the district court judge and actually he says that he did speak with him but at a conference which actually happened after the stipulation was signed then he says as he keeps again that's the question he kind of gets change each time if you look at the first answer he says yes i did discuss it at the conference which happened on april twelfth two thousand and thirteen the stipulation was actually signed the day before april eleventh two thousand thirteen how could he have discussed it it's not only the credibility that is wasn't really a play here i think this is a court really it is the session mentioned that heavily but really what it is is you just read the transcript on its face you have one side saying i never consented to stipulate and on the other you're saying he might and he said no your honor i do understand page eighty that was the first question he was asked his answer was no when he talked about discussing the complaint being an artfully worded but i would point you to what else the district court said the other questions he was asked on page eighty to eighty one did you have a discussion with him before you signed the document i wouldn't have signed without doing that do you recollection the conversation at this point i know we had discussions i just don't remember when where and how page eighty five he absolutely recall discussing the stipulation at the conference was well your honor the here the district court way the two sets of testimonies as your honor said the judge was able to see and hear the witnesses the judge had reasons to find that mr gomez was incredible as the judge laid out he was inconsistent about when he had been in afghanistan when he had been in the united states he was they were diametrically opposed as to how many times they had met before the stipulation w and he also denied writing a produce a letter to the court that the court confronted him with and he had no explanation as to why it was not his signature on that letter so this was really a classic credibility determination for the court objected this all came after the court heard the testimony at the hearing was able to tell not only by the words which may not read as well as they should on a cold record but by hearing and seeing the witnesses in their demeanor later on after the city won the motion to dismiss on the second set of claims which were arising from employment this was malicious prosecution false arrests claims arising out of an arrest and to the extent that my adversary points to confusion in mr reed's testimony about that it was certainly as the district court noted based on questioning by my adversary scow by counsel for the plaintiff that were based on the faulty premise that the stipulation dismissed all the  claims in response to the court's questions he confirmed that the claims related to the rest of prosecution or dismiss an employment claim survived so your honors again this was a credibility determination for the court there is no clear error on the factual findings  your owners would have to find a clearer it's clear air if there's a definite firm conviction or a mistake was committed on this record it there was not that judge was able to weigh what reed said which was opposed to what  said he said some things about whether or not he believes he can send his impression was that he agreed but also here was the plaintiff's burden it was the plaintiff's burden to establish that to rebut the press sumption there's a presumption here that the attorney acted with his authority overcome the stipulation entered into with the in the attorney client relationship i would just like to point out that just make one broad policy point to your honor's which is that it on a record like this even if your honour's believe that the evidence is somewhat equal the whole legal system really would fall apart to undermine the apparent authority of the attorney here in our system where people are represented people choose their representatives in court to uphold the stipulation recognizes the finality for all the parties here in the city where we're being dragged back into the slot occasion three or four years later we had thought the case had been done for many years we were the innocent counter party here and it's not infrequent that parties may have  simulations and obviously the court here determined that both parties could not be truthful under the circumstances but they could not he could not accept the judge could not accept the testimony of both parties and reach a ruling so the court made a credibility termination about it before it was signed but elsewhere he says my impression was he agreed to that i said not all the claims are going some claims are going to continue to be there but whether i dismiss them voluntarily by stipulation or they're going to be dismissed now years that may have been an  one question may not have been great the testimony as a whole showed that he agreed no my colleague is focusing on and the seems to me a pretty pivotal question that there's he says i didn't hear him say no is there an obligation on  attorneys part two before he assumes he has authority to follow a stipulation to ask the lawyer to ask the client yes or no and hear a direct answer to that question but i don't i don't know that much about that i would imagine that that is not true that the client if you're an attorney client relationship the turn explains that this is what he's going to do and he's going to do it and there's no active objection from the client then that would be would be enough to say there's  got the off to the incident took place on august twenty eighth two thousand right so three years later he wasn't jail for i think seven days right but  in court thank you very much