fourteen a trial was read on a complaint before a federal court under the federal standard laid out for the labor standards act and the illinois wage question payment act there is a claim stated within ten days to file a written agreement between the parties which never happened which never happened to mr for this particular case i think that the court can find that the plaintiff is not the only one that has a responsibility to make sure that that written agreement is achieved the best be some type of cooperation between the parties and the police cannot insist on terms that were not ever discussed part of the responsibility of pay employees for the past two weeks has and that's a very strong position that this entire country was built on the history of this particular country and there's you know just the supreme court case that was cited also states that when you have a settlement agreement in the center court under a federal issue it becomes a settlement agreement that is unfair simple really in the state court pursuant to state law wrong they do the federal courts do not improper conduct by the plaintiff and because he found a motion to reconsider i guess he changed his mind plea doesn't seem rational that you would do that you know he would make a decision and then completely reverse it without any basis damages your responsibility to pay a judgment that you're not going to pay so you're holding on to your own money that's a benefit to you and this way this discounts and to take into consideration that that was the defendant's objective in this case it's a nd thought it's an agreement to pay a certain amount of money to a plaintiff and then after you say well wait a minute i don't like this agreement i want to change it and then secondly yes to which you can through i'm just a little bit confused about th income and pay a reasonable amount of tax whatever he old there would be a lot less if their attorney season and you know other costs expenses so right now have been a substantial responsibility for him in addition i asked the court thinking the consideration the wherever your suspicion is that he wants the double damages that's contained in that settlement we attempted to settle on numerous occasions even after the fact that the case was dismissed with precious we never we never say listen we don't  and you've never acted in good faith in order to try to reach a sell let's assume that is the fact that he loses a fifty thousand dollars he has no right to make you operate in good faith to reach a settlement with or without  motion so that st notion that was dismissed he said this contract the draft agreement is not forceful and then play to council to test that same draft agreement as trying to force that same draft agreement after the trial court said this is not forceful that's where th federal work that was not done my exhibit g was my last effort to do so test a settlement agreement that i believe included the important elements that were discuss on the record but as counsel had stated there is a council had stated but it wasn't done within ten days there is never a good faith participation to reach an agreement and just right but you said it pretty much clear guidelines that tell me you have to do it this way and irritates the pleadings and it was a ridiculous argument that i kept explaining to mr dyer it is not as you state mandatory you must pay in employee delaying fifty thousand dollars and this bill there's a understand i have an individual who hasn't been paid in how many years and it's very difficult to get filing fees from clients which you must get us to dismiss and then net timely and the judge denied those in the exhibit g besides the forty thousand persons twenty thousand there's this breakdown of so much being it's it's the only public policy that employees who earn an income are to be paid and we shouldn't have to go through years of litigation we should have to bring through appeals and we should have the girls from dismissals there are