my pension claim without affording me notice and without st affording me a chance to be heard this record violated my right for due process as guaranteed by the th amendment i was never given a day in nation's argument appeared on the face of the complaint her understand that you think that was incorrect correct i guess i i disagree with that as well however y dressed was where the suicide and statue of limitations can go together it did not address doing without giving notice to the to the hurt to the other party understand that there is something called race judicata that is that once a court has decided a case it's over you can appeal to the next level you can go to the supreme court and ask them to fix it but once it's done it's done it wasn't explicitly it was done implicitly meaning it just the court didn't the coaches ignored the fact that it was done without due process the court just raised the issue in your motion for reconsideration correct yes and you got an order back that said your motion is denied correct that's what we call considering the issue that's that was your opportunity and we denied it we didn't address  dress nor do we hardly ever address point by point issues raised in motions for reconsideration so so no i am sorry to tell you that you've had your day in court and you've had other what i call bites at the apple to remind us what you think we didn't get right and we have addressed with the subsequent orders i believe those orders did not address  understand what it is me i understand what you believe what i'm explaining to you that they did address them you might not like how they were addressed but they were address not but isn't due process something that cannot be taken away from a person isn't that something that that is inherently by the constitution you know given to every human being in the united day and yes yes ok so what is what is that since you're here what is the argument that you would have made if the district wanted said it looks to me like this is time barred but come on  tell me why i'm wrong now tell me why the court was wrong so to two arguments i have the foundation upon which just that limitations was raised was an assumption that available little number two if i would have gotten those hypothetical documents of they will you then i would have seen in those documents that the years the contested years that i was i was stacked up over there just take them never at all but if you wanted to know whether you were eligible for the pension benefits or not you could have found out by looking into the subject at that point that's the issue is that at the point at the point at that time i had no clue i was looking to retire it was one thousand nine hundred and ninety and there's a little bit younger and i was there was no reason for me to look into whether or not in and fifteen when i retire i'll be didn't i mean i think i'm afraid that what the law is is that if you have access to that kind of information by access i don't mean that you actually read it got it read it looked at it figured it out  either care whether you're on the pension plan or you don't but you could have if you cared to know whether you had the pension benefits there's a whole set of documents that describes what the plan is and you didn't take advantage of that stanley presented to the court for the case the two thousand and four plan documents they didn't present anything from back in the ninety's and the eighty's when i started working  two thousand and four that if you're getting if you're not getting paid like you do you have until july two thousand and four to sort of get your pension under ten and you know so my argument is the court let's examine those that commence and you'll see that in those documents even if i even if they gave out and even if i saw a need for had them i would have said oh i'm getting pension when i told that to the court the courts record keeps on you know sort of like spinning i mean i told you to get out of here every time but they feel kind of seems like they feel that they really didn't do their job and they don't tell me that you know you've been wrong lose can't go back and re investigate prior cases over and over again or it would never end everyone would be able to come back and challenge the result of a case by saying oh you got this wrong go back and look at it again that's not how it  if he has anything to say and what is my recourse at this point in court no to wait for a decision from this board and if you don't like that there is a body that exists to correct afternoon your honors may please the court and robert hoffman from kramer eleven the appellee morgan stanley i think we fully briefed these issues several times before in the square and i would briefly briefly know that this court has already made determinations with respect to all of the arguments that mr record has made today with respect to his concerns about the use of the two thousand and four plan and the nd appeal to the score on the previous rule sixty motion the court specifically stated the district court did not urge by denying reconsideration because the two thousand and four plan would not have altered the district court's decision and indeed from the very st appeal the court has looked very carefully at the sue a spontaneous raising of this and made a determination in cordons with prior precedent and consistent principles that there was no violation by doing misuse of rule sixty b which specifically is not permitted to be used to realty related gate issues already decided and therefore we would request that the court firm i'm happy to answer any questions the panel may have and otherwise