mcginest this court has some history in this in this case going back to the read beginnings of this is this is probably the last of the african american stimulation from the discrimination cases left from the track the process some way away but they were intimately involved in this case pushing this case and dealing with this case as the case went back to track the operation there was  to make rational decisions in terms of helping them why didn't you say that to anyone then what we did do that you on it was it was discussed many that it was discussed in the course of the arbitration many many times in fact in fact the arbitrator a guardian ad litum in this case that was that was discussed it was not an ability that he had to stay was it was he would was not capable of it of entering a state that would take it past the one hundred and fifty monitor has the power under the upgrade under the consent decree to cure a miscarriage of justice and that should have been allowed to go back to an arbitration with the conservatives and the conservative could have directed counsel to make of the proper findings in this case that would have allowed us to show by the opponents of evidence that in fact he wasn't tired of the damages over and above the on the track because what prevented you from taking any discovery and presenting any case only would permit me to file was the monitors report previously under the assumption that he was entitled to it a twenty two million dollars award he would not permit me to submit the direct evidence which you could have taken out of his privilege and i don't i couldn't way that what's in the record is what we did file as a direct case it's his monitors report and that's what i was instructed to do was to file the monitors report that's all i could do other than withdraw and i felt at the end of the day was joint would have been unfair to this gentleman who had been representing all through that track a track be that a geisha withdrawing was not the answer the last chance we had really was to get the conservatorship in place which is a state court proceeding which m jones who is also it's in the guinness is nephew and was involved in the discovery of the case he's an attorney but he had to ramp that up this that the family had great deal of difficulty in convincing m  his stubbornness is admirable but he could not be moved he simply could not be moved and i had no choice i could not seek a guardian ad litum i couldn't go to the trial court because of the limited jurisdiction it's i think there are emotional issues here they could not because i was there was there was mr mcguinness didn't appear to me being entirely out of his mind for the crook for an extended period of time i would get articulate instructions from m mcguinness instructing me to and stating that without invading privilege with stating that this information had had discussions with congress and everything else isn't this i could not clearly state to myself that this man was incompetent other than the way he was not giving me any assistance so i believed at the end of the day rather than withdraw the best we could do recognizing that the that the operators hands were tied by the by the fact he could you cannot adjudicate a guardian ad litum by the fact he was restricted by the but by the terms of the consent decree in terms of the time he had to to complete a hearing and and issue an award that the best shot we had was to get the conservatorship  soon as we could and move to the monitor who had a broader range from a miscarriage of justice that's the reason for the monitor he billy is not restricted to the record as it was before your trip i think the attributed to mr mcguinness as mental incapacity at no point did his counsel raise that incapacity to the arbitrator because the arbitrator had no evidence in support of the claim the claim was denied and on a petition for monitor review because the monitors would be limited to reviewing the record before the arbitrator there was nothing for the money to review so the district court correctly dismissed that petition and unfortunately that's the end of the road his claim what about  did monitor would have to effectively allow the arbitrator to review new evidence which is not allowed by the order of reference or the consent decree and so it would if it would appellant requests of relief that is not contemplated by the consent decree it's possible that under rule sixty five dollars that the consent decree could be modified for equitable considerations of course those arguments were not made to the district court which that is a court considered to a spa day so arguably any argument to that effect before this court is forfeited but even in that event there's no indication that the consent decree should be reformed at this point this is as appellant himself conceded this is effectively the last of the pickford claimants and under attack b and that does he has to be treated differently from roughly twenty thousand dollars other claimants whose kinds were successfully processed and released given over one billion dollars of relief so just so that we're clear here your argument is that even if he was not competent in him that's the reason why no evidence was presented to  basically your are not necessarily wrong or if his counsel had demonstrated to the arbitrator raised that concern the opportunity was in had full forty to stay the deadlines as was done in this case to be able to permit settlement or extend the deadline the district court expressly delegated authority for the government at the parties consent to extend those deadlines and the government consented at every turn in this case there was an expert a communication that the government considered to do between the arbitrator and mr mcguinness it's not clear that communication ever took place but at every turn the government consented to extending deadlines permitting this year mcginnis to submit evidence at a later date and that was simply never done at some point a claim could not answer my question so what we did ask that we did ask for a stay on we asked for a stay to get a settlement proposal three you could ask or stay to extend the deadlines will you resolve the conservatorship right yes you're on and you said well no not not formally on if you want to but we had several conversations where all discussions were made it did not appear to the parties to me or anybody else that mr mcguinness was going to change his position on this evidence and there was no i didn't have it i didn't have authority at that time to say this to me again if you're going to seek a conservatorship and have authority from mr mcguinness to say that to the arbitrator or anybody else i couldn't simply say i'm going to try and convince gentleman to seek a conservatorship so we can get a stay i couldn't give the arbitrator any period of time that that state would be good for could you do that because you because i didn't have authority from my client to do that i did i simply did not have authority from my of mental illness and all sorts of i didn't need their permission to tell the court that i think that there needs to be an evaluation here or or no absolutely i agree with you and that was done with the arbitrator but the difference in that situation is tell me in the record show me in the record you want it was that this was not done in this was this was done in the course of several pre hearing conversations