questions or mr parr nato says in her testimony that the settlement agreement the pieces of paper were read into the record now it's confusing to me because the pieces of paper the written agreement clearly wasn't testimony between the pardons it was a matter of the appeal he did not understand that in return for certain things that he would be giving up the right to appeal for instance that's what did he think a settlement men i mean i have got i'm baffled i mention of there being a valid settlement agreement until after we filed the petition for you that went to the marriage system protection court it was only then basically that they said wait a minute there's a valid settlement agreement between the part asked you a question whether i could get out of all of this or that is that is let's assume we should and room for argument purposes let's assume we agree with you there's no settlement agreement can then appeal that terminations to the m s b he understands what the government's evidence would be if he does have certain evidence to produce all waiver that would indicate that he was treated differently than other individuals and that will help to the poor and the byrd said no we're not going to consider that we're going to look at that in fact they denied the petition for review because they said we're going to send it back to have this jerk did this this jurisdiction when she decided correct well if we sent it back why would be why would not the correct result be for us to happen word again what it didn't do before namely consider the petition for you look at the petition for review because you sent it back to see if there was jurisdiction because of whether they've been a settlement now we've said there was jurisdiction you have a decision from then clear eyed at least i thought the point said we're not clear as to whether there was a settlement agreement which you move you know which required intelligent consent on your client's heart so on send me word read initial decision is the decision of the board in the absence of any obstacle to the a j's decision is and is that when you think you are well i think what are you saying in light of what you you that there was not a knowing wait for the appropriate thing would be for us three minutes of the board and then to orlando and you can see to make your respective arguments as to what berger proceedings  testimony about what transpired when she how she received the settlement agreement the written wind and what transpired there after and when she was transmitted it back to the agency and all those sorts of that seem very suspicious and they don't seem consistent with the other documents and evidence produced in memorialized what occurred in this case unfortunately there was no record taken at the time of the mitchell august twenty ninth two thousand and seven testimony by the way which you know we listened to the ten minute long version of it where she was asked some questions and then it was going to stop in the a j i'm self decided to ask her a whole stream questions after that because she hadn't actually said what we needed to be said beforehand and you know i just i think it very much out of her testimony personally it was very difficult to listen to she says it's part of the oral agreement that this document i'm holding in my hand of course we have no idea what document that was and it can't possibly have been the written thing that you all introduced because everyone agrees that was memorialized after yes that happened after that and after the take a physicist document which i'm holding in my hands was read into the record you  to establish that the written document actually memorialise to an agreement that was reached earlier the understanding of the age is expressed in the opinion was that the own agreement was to the voluntary resignation of the three year bar from employment which it found in this necessarily would include or could be unreasonable assume b was not able to understand that he was giving up his appeal rights part of that but there was no barnett in terms of how does the government you the agency relationship since he authorized to act in his behalf is that your understanding of how that that  yes mr loach executed a dozen mission of representative form which we included in the supplemental appendix at page four and then there's an explanation of the terms of that supplemental appendix page six misformed today it was the union representative in essence was given authority to act as the equivalent of mr de loach as attorney during the proceeding turning in fact we were often to include that litigants are bound by the things their counsel does for them presumably on his behalf yes it's curious that it also calls for him to sign it and that of course is what has caused so that aside what's costs you now let me ask you i find this written settlement let's assume hypothetically that the settlement agreement is in fact validated by mr de la roche it's in fairly interesting document and i'm going to digress from the main focus as it's hard to get because i want you to help me understand soon a party agrees to never challenge the agreement they just signed is that a meaningful agreement and if so how do you enforce it it's an interesting  question i'm not sure exactly what the application is here for well it's one application is they're poorly breaking the agreement and this written agreement is valid hypothetical it's valid then their background presumably not to challenge the agreement and i was just wondering what the government does to enforce such things or was this just nonsense that were here this part of the agreement at least is just nonsense and kind that understand what it is the government of thought it was agreeing to i'm not sure what they were bringing to him with that although certainly the settlement agreement of the oral and written is says and then i informed the agency that i will get them a copy after my client signed it he wants to think about it first it seems to me that she's almost communicating to the agency that we haven't actually agreeing and using this written document yet because she was under the belief that she had to wait to get her client signature before the whole thing would be wrapped up so why is that necessarily constitute a binding settlement agreement when it's clear m not agreed to sign it and it's equally clear that mrs far nato seemed to think that his signature was necessary and that she would secure it and send it over the next day after he had a chance to look at it leave the testimony was found by the minister judge was that this one to go testify that at that point she told him she had already agreed to remain but it was his choice whether to get someone else to review it nevertheless funny that she was authorized to settle the nonetheless signed it it was clear suppose suppose these the split second between her signature and him saying i'm not going to sign it i want to take it to a lawyer perth let's reverse that let's say the facts of this case where he says i'm not running that i want to take you to a lawyer person i'm not sure i agree irrelevant to whether or not the written agreement constitutes a valid settlement every all there was was a rigid room in the client was telling me attorney no way don't sign this i don't i don't agree to this we make come out differently  but in this case we don't have that based on credibility terminations we also had a valid world agreement and buyer's remorse after an oral agreement even if you refused to sign a written agreement which memorialize that rule agreement as this were confusing to set september fourth two thousand and seven order because it says or has been notified of the appellant has rejected the oral agreement that was reached on august twenty ninth two thousand and seven to read a sentence we don't have a full explanation of that that was the purpose of the rematch but even from that sentence it would imply that there was an oral agreement reached and later after the fact it was rejected which would be inconsistent with this court's precedent that once the oral agreement is reached it cannot be just because of a change of mind rejected by a party that it voluntarily agreed to it but if anything the boards remain to be seen as order to develop the facts concerning this oral agreement and standard review in this case i would say that the substantial evidence is the credibility determination based upon circumstances of the oral agreement and the execution of the written agreement and there was substantial evidence to support those rep comes across that she signed a representation that was not true for an employee that he had stopped or had told her not to do something she did it anyway then they're going to take away that have the ability to go behind it for instance when i say that look at page seventy two of them to respond to the testified that you went to mr wood's office to pick up a settlement agreement was in one to two hours after the august twenty ninth telephone conference ended