and far i don't know that i would put too much weight on the fact that the letter was not signed by a judge i mean i understand your other arguments but we have lots of orders that  from our court which are signed by the clerk for the court and those are court orders and in every sense of the word and violations one of those court orders will produce i think that that's a possibility because like i think consideration especially since it was a jurisdictional issue and had determined that in fact it should because the jurisdictional arguments vacate the decision the board other words  i find it difficult to to believe that in order like this would be issued if the court namely the court of veterans appeals hadn't looked at the motion and decided that it correctly represented the law i frankly was start reviewed that they are merely processed as a man after of course by its order based upon the agreement of the pardons and that the court did not consider itself bound by those agreements but simply for the purpose of judicial efficiency or not even in the case of a motion relating to jurisdiction where this was not really in motion related to jurisdiction or was not a contested matter this was a that or which the parties mistakenly determined that there was all that related to jurisdiction in the sense that the board had said it did not have jurisdiction and the parties came forward and i ran to the motion as to the prince said the board is wrong it did have jurisdiction that's right but let's  that there was a consideration by the court under the rules of refuse me under the doctrine of the law of the case an exception to that doctrine is is that there was assume that the court had read the motion and had considered it and adopted the findings and the legal conclusions that were offered up in the joint remand that legal conclusion is wrong and the court below in lieu of examining knew whether or not there was or was not jurisdiction agree simply relied upon erroneous belief the law dictates doctrine without recognizing that an independent examination had to have been done as to whether or not you're saying there was nothing to prevent us from taking our own look at jurisdictional quite actually not because it is a legal determination by the veterans court and be i and there been oral argument briefing and so forth in the court of appeals for hundreds claim and decided in the first instance that there was after all jurisdiction the da and therefore granted the joint motion and this case came up again in proper decision with a notice of disagreement stated a case and sustained appeal those sequence of steps have to be met in order to create jurisdiction when the court said that they affirmed the bord that it had jurisdiction independent of the law case doc they the court misinterpreted seventy one of four and seventy one because seventy one of four says that the secretar of three b one which requires a different form for v a decisions in the first instance which include amongst other things a description of the reasons which were in the supplemental statement cage but also  statement of the case and you fire a substandard appeal on the left all three of those things are in there the board cannot undertake jurisdiction which is what the board said heard it went back although the case because it didn't go to those of disagreement the fundamentals of seventy one five simply were not complied and the board correctly identified that in three different agency did and the original agreement proceeded to saying in effect look sure maybe there's a formal issue here as to what is on the particular piece of paper but the befor e the the proper steps were taken even if there were formal errors in what was at the top of the piece of paper now if that if that is so then why isn't that a position that is in the nature of that factual determination that is ultimately the predicate for a finding of jurisdiction in other words if if everybody agrees for example in a diversity case that one of the parties is in a different state from the other party they can certainly agree to that and that would not be i think something that they could go back later and say well that's that agreement is a no idea because i can show that wasn't true and therefore there was no jurisdiction because i see this the same kind of thing because you're talking about waiving expressed statutory requirements under seventy one of those folks and those statutory requirements cannot be waived by the parties there has to be a to make a decision that is not a notice of disagreement for a jurisdictional purposes that is a notice of disagreement putting the v a on notice that they must adjudicate that claim a clear and unmistakable error which is what the first nine is comes from the from the rating decision ninety nine is a ninety four specifically denominated rating decision it's seven two thousand seven twenty go yes then we have the notice of disagreement right and then we have a statement of the case so so far everything's fine except that the board ultimately decides that none of this was ever the the potential problem so far there's nothing other than the absence of adjudicate specific adjudication at the our level of the q claim that's a problem but then i take it that when it goes back instead of having a really essentially we have something which is denominated and this is seven fifteen two thousand and two a supplemental stating the case now i suppose that should have said rating decision  to the broader legal questions and bill i'm still struggling with one point no words what we've got here is what the r o treats as a rain cision effect i think they explicitly say this will be deemed the rating and if i get the right terminology the right so so that the problem if there was a problem here it is that the supplemental statement of the case that dealt with the allow it to find jurisdiction in a setting in a factual setting in which by law under the the proper construction of those statutes they may not the question is why isn't that not make the decision that ok they have a statute that requires this and here's what i believe and that's ok but if if his argument is well that's wrong you know the court of appeals true that is claims got wrong and it's to the extent that they were following us we were was adequately on notice but issues but if you take the legal position that what the factual matter of whether there's a notice or not is irrelevant because he has to actually the documents have to comply strictly with the requirements then you don't inquire into the from asserting that he was denied or accurate statement case in this case he wasn't arguing that but more importantly even if you concede that the s s o c could be a decision we filed a notice of disagreement right you would not have that right what seventy one of the five that requires is not it's easy is a state of the game there was no statement of the case issue as  it's in again it's in title supplemental statement and that the pro well but i mean if you if you strike out if i strike out two or supplemental no protest does that serve as the state in the case from the ten twenty four zero to no disagree