i'm here by showing the wrong court when you're in the merit system protection board because it has jurisdiction limited by statute and regulation with respect to enforcing its prior orders  you may have an argument that could have been sustained for example in the court of federal claims under your theory of breach of implied contract of good faith and fair dealing and so forth but it seems to me you can't make those kind of arguments in the board because the board only has the jurisdiction that the statute gives it and unless it has entered an order there's nothing that it has  enforce in this case the agreement that you're pointing to is one that was never the subject of an hour that i conceived by the administrative judge and therefore  the ministry of judge would seem to plainly have lacked jurisdiction to enforce it if there's no word or entered there's nothing to enforce no power to enforce what's your answer to that well my argument basically is that if you accept the fact that a contract that the contract contract is does exist there is a mechanism pursuant to the more case for for ordering the honoring  except with respect to an order that the board has issued and in a case where there are settlements the board issues an order that incorporates the settlement here there is no order incorporating the settlement that you're trying to enforce therefore there is no jurisdiction to weller's the settlement first of all there was pending jurisdiction in the in the port on the underlying of a board order here there is no board order adopting a new agreement it is your honor it is the settlement of a case that was all brought pursuant to that proceeding order and i would cite and what i have suggesting is that the court has equitable power to its lot of course it ministry to board it doesn't have equitable power it doesn't have pending jurisdiction it doesn't have any jurisdiction to enforce except within the words of a single statutory sentence and i don't see how you come within the terms of that one sentence if you can show us how you come within that one sentence i think you're wasting our time well the if you look at the and the proceedings were reopened so as to record it now i can't i don't want to know what i was using this for it is a  procedural precedent that has a lot of precedent as to us at all because it's a board decision and we're not bound by a board just like i understand that this court does not constitute precedent period i understand well i understand that well this is never been overruled and it is at and that was basically allowed for the court do we really have our decision counsel that we on this panel are required to follow those decisions seem to me to clearly say that the board lacks jurisdiction to enforce any agreement unless that agreement has been incorporated into an order of the board which did not happen here well what what if could not the speed of this action have been considered an action to one man that agreement incorporated into the board because it does have a nexus with that agreement it does change the consideration that was to bruce eve to change the contemplated sequence of events it would have avoided confusion once before us and your petition to enforce the board held that it lacked yours fiction over your petition to enforce because there was no underlying agreement that was incorporated into a board order which is clearly true as a matter of fact well i'm suggesting well what i'm suggesting to to the court is that there is a the agreement is the night in eighty six and it was so far as that is not what you're trying to enforce you're trying to enforce the terms of something that you say was agreed to after nineteen eighty six the one thousand nine hundred six agreement already was the subject of an enforcement action and that was successful so you're not enforcing need six agreement you're in forcing what you claim to be a substitute superseding agreement which isn't an agreement that's before the board because it was never in a board order well if the limit of that since the nine hundred eighty six leaman in any way it should be part of it i would argue that the statute does not intend for it not to be part of the record the statute would not intend to have a nine hundred eighty six agreement affect without any of that effect being on the record in any way this is not this just simply isn't like all the cases where all an agreement comes up in this been no prior either the either the either the pending case has been has been dismissed before the demon with being within it this is a case where there is actually an agreement that is being affected well that's what you say well what but but there is no writing signed by the parties suggesting an agreement the case law seems to require for purposes of enforcement that there be a writing of voluntarily entered into by both parties that's like in here so in your mind  may be an agreement but there is no agreement that the board could have incorporated into erected into the wreckage usually there was a letter dated may fifteenth that made a unilateral offer i accept it in writing and i accept the you will let me have an argument about unilateral offers but the case law requires a piece of paper signed by both parties representing their final settlement agreement in this appeal we plainly don't have such a right i'm sorry but it does are you saying that there is a contract there can be no contract unless it's on one piece of paper i'm saying there can be no agreement that triggers m s p be enforcement your stiction unless the agreement is in writing signed by both parties and entered into the record of a board perceive well and none of which three you have in this case well there is so in yours so i read that it was not edited i agree on number three i mean this that's very clear and you all you can't contest that there is no single writing signed by both parties well it seems to me that the that the answer and i have to agree that nothing was incorporated into a board proceeding record here well when i so you're all for three on the prerequisites of an in forcible agreement giving rise to jurisdiction why are we here well because we're here because i'm suggesting on two for three and that there is a mechanism to make it three for three but we are agreed that we are going to run out of my my additional argument is that  no jurisdiction because it had no record agreement well what all we have to decide was the board right or wrong in reaching that conclusion well the only case that that comes up is certainly not binding on this court but this court i presume is here because because i suggest this is a case of first impression this court is here to decide cases first impression and because of the is i would say as i said because of the nexus between this agreement already existing corded remit which would be affected by it  your offer and therefore can't arrive at a conclusion whether we might accept that without more information please submit more information you did submit more information they never did an evaluation and they never responded to your offer so it looks to me like your offer is left lying dead on the table and responded to an excepted now you can say about how your letter becomes a contract but it just seems to me that it's goes again are a common sense to say your letter forms a contract when they never responded to the offer in your letter one way or the other what they promised to respond that is the point they may have breached an implied contract to be responsive for which you maybe could sue them in another tribunal but not in the merit system protection a board jurisdiction as a matter of our appellate court of economic power you have the power to order that agreement entered into the record that is my that is my position and i point to the more case for lack of jurisdiction then what did you mean when you when you said at the bottom of page four that the lack of a entered agreement quote divests the m s p b and therefore this court of jurisdiction that seem to be saying to federal circuit lacks jurisdiction over this appeal if that's true we would have to dismiss if it's not true then why are you saying it solved all of us that is awkwardly worth it how about on page seven where you say any such contract was outside the m s p b s apostrophe s parin and therefore this court's apostrophe s and current jurisdiction m s b does not a chance to accept his partial loaf from the government should be required to use every possible effort to construct an offer that meets that satisfies all the parameters fitzpatrick does not even arguing that there is in fact a contract in place or a modification of the eighty six agreement in place is asking that before and therefore this court forced the government to actually initiate the contracting process in the first place that is to make an offer this as i just read to you that is way outside of the board's jurisdictional power to do as i think you correctly identified in your discussion with mr matthews we have a bright line test you focused say this mr silver brand wants six minutes for his initial argument and three minutes for rebuttal and mr thompson six minutes for argument no rebuttal t you're going to need to speak up a little bit y