husband never waived her right to that annuity but she signed a document to that effect the does she not yes she did that the document that mrs brazos signed was a consent form and it did not have former told her what the right well as and i will i wondered how or more i think i think that there are two things that are missing from the form number one is an expressed statement that she had an independent entitlement to a statutory annuity a survivor newly and that did not indicate that she waived her right as required by the statute and that is because a waiver requires knowledge of what she's giving up and an understanding of what she's given up and what kind of knowledge does she need to have i think to wave a statutory right to an annuity number one she had to know she had such a right she can't waive it if she's not aware of it she has to have knowledge of that right the record indicates she did not have knowledge that's right there's an expressed finding by the ministry of judge cook in this case that has not been challenged by the government that mrs brown is it did not have knowledge of her statutory right and she would never have signed the form if she knew that she was giving up her to give her annuity or not if you compare the form that he signed that mr brosnan signed two pages later on page one hundred one eighty three in the record that's four and under which are page one eighty three are in the record an annuity with full survivor benefits for your spouse mr broad as it is informed of her statutory right to it and knew it he she is not you will not find similar language to that on the form that she signed three form that he chimed in and she had signed this would you be prepared to agree that that's enough that she doesn't need to and she can't later disclaimed the form if the for may have meant it's certainly would make it a lot harder for a claimant to satisfy their burden if the claimant came forward and said i didn't understand the form and the o p m had a more clear form that said you have a right to a survivor  if you sign this form you are giving it up and that the claimant little heart lot harder time is status establishing their burden of proof by a preponderance that they were not even on the facts of this case where the administrative judge said she didn't didn't understand what the form did to or are you now saying if the former only better she'd have no kay well i think if it and other claim it had signed a good form and the specific instructions to the signature or the sink the instructions in this case could say to be adequate you are entitled to a survivor new lady if your spouse dies you are entitled to a survivor intuit amount of fifty five percent of your spouse's annuity if you check this box you are agreeing to give up that right if you check this box you are agreeing to reduce the amount that you w title to mr franco what would you say is the notary testified that they came in he put the form in front of her and i heard him say slogan everything it package is as an appendix to the form all of the relevant statutes and some of the relevant cases ok but the evidence is she never read before what's your position she signed the form and she should be bound by real that the even if she has no knowledge of what she own what she's entitled to in that so that's a valid way pr in your view in my view the claim in that circumstance would not be able to satisfy their burden of proof because they signed it and that's where the collins line of cases comes in to say if you sign a draft that doesn't qualify but we're not in that on the circumstances of the execution because the form was not adequate i only stated that in response to judge players question under the hypothesis that the former more clear in those circumstances i think this personal circumstances of  have become much less significant and and would require directs fraud coercion ok so if i understand correctly your position is the government winds of the workers are good or were you a person understood what how far this form of yours will carry you ok ok i would like to close by saying if you compare the form on page one eighty three that mr prosser signed with the formula one eighty one that mrs prophe from thank you thank you she consents to the waiver of it that's what entices it says that she will get a full survivor annuity unless she consents to some other election life that ok but it does tell her that unless she does something unless she consents to something by signing this for she will get a full survivor annuity i mean reason doesn't use the language that our spouse may live but it tells her she'll get it unless the regular interest or knows what that means but if a person doesn't understand independently but there subjectively understand then that kind of course seeks to obtain that knowledge but if the information is on away something that the statute entitle you to and has at what point would the government recognize the possibility that something went wrong which is contrary to t invalidate her signature just as a matter of fact that she did not know what her rights were and that she had no understanding of what this form meant as a legal matter you don't the fact that she did not understand what her rights were under the law and she did not understand what this signing of this paper would do to her we cannot dispute that we cannot challenge some of those a fact that  it's merely because you didn't take the time to seek information that would explain it to you more fully or if you made it in a very narrow because you didn't read it fully and i mean we've already decided this can i well actually i would say yes you're out of that in school do agree with that your honor but there are two forms again that his brows signed the first one which i pointed out in a one eighty one the second one at one eighty four actually signed also before the notary has two statements the first one repeats i have freely the cause but the whole statement says i understand that i will be ineligible to continue coverage under the federal employees health benefits program if my spouse dies because i have to sent him to his slash her election to provide survivor statement in this case where there is no dispute that ms brazile and her husband signed the form in the presence of a notary public there can be no question that she waived her right to a survivor i know it i don't believe that let me read it the way it should read it should read in this case read there's no dispute that ms bronson and her husband signed the form in the presence of a notary public there can be no question that she signed the form that's the way that read she did sign the form but that has almost no connection with whether she knowingly waived her right there i disagree with that sentence what's your fallback position what do you have any other form is conclusive in the form of adequate notice and so what's the deal what's the difference between this form and how does the new one give more information to the point you know i have to confess i was not aware that that o p m had come out with a new form it's not part of the record blow clearly i'm not familiar with it so i can only really speaks the information that's in this form and the two thirds actually and i don't want to could be clear well i have also noted the weather modification was and i don't know the reason for the modifications so there's really nothing that i can say that i can't see that that's that's light on some inadequacy in this  rm or not this war however i believe is adequate the two forms have substantial information that provide puts the signer on notice that they are consenting to no survivor an we ten days i'm sure ten days would be fine ten days and it would be helpful if you could change your documents perhaps with each other before you said to him so if you want to criticize  endorse or whatever and then what we will get will be something from you tube you or perhaps if you could exchange documents in ten days and file them with us within two days thereafter so that we'll have one bridget you want to tell  don't want you to not tell us things that you've discovered that we really need to know who we have in mind something short we need to know more why do we need to know that that would be fine or i could i request that we be given maybe five days after questions about the other argument that was raised by ms rozen her brief but not addressed here at oral argument which had to do with the use of the word consent rather then a waiver that the court has now questions we have explains in our brief that the of the word consent to the waiver is basically the same as waiver the statute itself uses those terms interchangeably that the legislative history makes very clear that the congress meant to work consent spousal consent to the waiver to be  with of jointly waiving and we cited in our brief some legislative history but i want to leave the court with a little additional legislative history comes out of the same house report that the merits and protection board cited in i had because she didn't make a knowing waiver however she lunged if we were to conclude that the government would the government have a cause of action against his state to recover the difference in the the amount that he received during his retirement years which i think were relatively small thought about it mining instinctive reaction is that the answer would be yes with a government be able to go against her retirement her survivor and make deductions from problem again i haven't thought about it i suspect that it would be the latter too only if she was the cell area they're certainly not an expert in parents laws but that's what i would suspect but it is true that the government presumably would have a cause of action against his estate i do i have seen a statement by the statement by o p m that they adopted that supplemental form that ms stern kept referring to because it was not clear they said our forms were not clear notice in that case there was in fact an attachment that suggested might have been done in this case that made clear what the law is now refer to the instructions to the signatory said your decision about making this deposit may affect your rights under the civil service retirement system please read the attached information floor employee or survivor carefully to be sure you understand the consequences of not making that the posit for military service and finally i'd like to conclude by saying the government has agreed that the o p m for must notify mrs browser of her right it is uncontested that mrs bronson did not otherwise know of her right and it's uncontested that she is entitled to a survivor nudi absent a waiver and we have findings that there was no waiver in this case judge administrative judge cook found and the binding finding was unchallenged by the government that mrs brosnan did not intentionally and knowingly waived the right to surviv subject to challenge and maybe gamble at that gate or it may not but i think it's an interesting question as to whether there is a time after which even under compelling circumstances it's too late to challenge