that the purported contract here the the charge reduction paper is an unambiguous the u s government including the army and everybody else what it is the language excludes in the things i read and i know what it doesn't do when i'm asking you if your position isn't against captain rag or per act occurring in pepper i'm the u s attorney does my decision to not prosecute preclude the application of the code of military justice in a court martial again that often i can make the answer is no but i'd like to explore well if the answer to that is no then why don't we get the same answer when it's the district of columbia because even page eight is the community service agreement that you've talked about the agreement to complete forty hours of community service where is there any sort of liable for any propriet parallel justice system and that a promise of a prosecutor in the one system would not bind the other break the ample suppose that i'm major birdsong and i'm a military prosecutor and judge lynn does something wrong and he's being prosecuted in the military justice system i'm the prosecutor and i did miss the chart under your logic the district good morning to you do you agree with mr philbin that the interpretation of the papers here that purportedly constitute a contract is a question of law then obligation of the two parties to the agreement in this in the case of these documents is that not also a question of law not at page six of the opinion of the trial judged it seems to me that the princip legal pronouncement that the interpretation of the agreement was an ambiguity but if you agree that the meaning of the contract is the question of law then how can you read on she threw it out for lack of her six so he said i have no jurisdiction over any question in this case now i thought you agreed with me that at least one question in this case the meaning of the contract is a question of law  so he's necessarily saying no no no there are no legal questions here their only factual question and therefore under bowling with you i have to throw the couple like yours exist because i have no authority with  yeah but that's not raised here on appeal what we're talking about in this appeal as i understand it is is whether there was a contract between somebody representing the government question a fact now is a very different situation as and turns out that in fact the interpretation of the agreement is a question of who wrote then presumably would he should have done instead of saying that was to say army and i the attorney general sign sign the paper so there's no there's no question that is one system trying to bind the other both systems are signing on the  where there's later a dispute about what the promise is in that agreement were no question of authority or both this is being represented is in the content of that agreement signed by the attorney general and the judge the general and the defendant the question of law the question really comes down to is whether we should done the back to her to determine the many of us agreement or whether the meaning of this agreement is so clear on its face that we can determine it without having another round of proce about three minutes signed by the corporation council of the disk would that agreement preclude the n i distaste attorney for the district of columbia from subsequently indicting this person for