the decision of the appeals house would also review or would review the decision that it indicated in the correspondence as two thousand and one of this mission there's only one two thousand when that's it and that's why just pertains three times it said that over the course of more than three years our position what i'm arguing on her behalf is that the appeals council indicated that it was taking review it then claimed era later our position is that if that denial of review puts jurisdiction sufficiently in the court and that the matter should have been submitted on the merits the government should have been required to submit an administrative record so that we could then review the two thousand and one decision as well because the appeals counsel said that it was numbers someplace around here at any rate so there's an order of sixty one where he says the appeal counsel letter inadvertently indicates the date of the hearing decision rendered made twenty four to one which was in the prior application and then goes on to say that that that was merely a mistake and it's the appeals council is precluded from reopening the decisions haven't they made it crystal clear that they never opened it for the  was an inadvertent decision which they have made crystal clear to your client why why would we why would we say no you're not telling the truth you really open that for the merits of two or one and you're not telling the truth that that was just a typographical error we're talking about your honor because we're saying that because they read indicated to her three times that they were reviewing the two thousand one decision even though they said later on that was a mistake you know we're sorry we meant the two thousand and four decision they said that three times their own in trouble document for making decisions the how life as it's called indicates that it does have authority it did have authority over the two thousand and one decision why americans and that is the type of argument that i'm making is and stand there and the problem is that we have some very strict language in our cases about which you have to demonstrate to get the government bound by a stop which don't exist in this case that's why i was wondering  going towards this stuff now i'm saying that the government was very explicit in saying what it was going to review it said three times of two thousand and one because i understand but then they say no that's a typographical error you're saying you're bound by what you claim is a typ error which sounds like a stop all but the stop the cases are very strong stop against the government and i don't see where you in your brief have been able to overcome that heavy burden or even attempt to do right your honor that the best i could do is what i indicated there in arguing that the by indicating it what it was going to review and because it had authority based on its own internal decision making documents the the how it's that it had in fact given notice that that record twenty five twenty nine and thirty three and you can see they are just standard letters recognizing that he claimant has asked for something additional time to respond a copy of the hearing taken starch those do not clearly not meant to be reopened secondly and i think very significantly is that the conditions for reopening were not in fact met and u p s counsel did state that in their april two thousand and six letter  within four years for social security claims and two us rest aside for good causes and the appeals counsel noted there that both of these initial decisions were beyond the door into your limits so they could even look at the good cause issue which primarily has to do with new and material evidence claims initial claims can be reopened for any reason for fraud and various other matters which are identified there are none of those are really at issue in this case so it's