and those passengers were part of the some discussion where the court had a pretrial conference on in terms of that agreement and so judge what were the terms of the oral agreement the or agreement was the when i look at it it seems to me that judge mckeon reached the conclusion that all he could recall and what made sense in the context of everything he went through was that there was not an agreement except as it relates to the  he longfellow's could not have settled the case with respect to deborah because that case was extinguished i think you took the position in front of judge macand that seems inconsistent with the position you're taking now not at that point i never said that i wasn't going to than that i conceded the longfellow at that point took the position that it was improper for them to settle it because it had been  reserve a way for contributions able to settle and piece out the different places in this case and that's what we did here we were able to do that one to one of the things i'm really troubled by is that it appears that judg did not recall the agreement and hugh believe it was so and you know you just here's the dilemma you're saying look here's what we agreed to here's what we did here's what we offered here's what we were to get in return that was the deal everybody accepted it but he recalls it being a charge macand rim recalls there was nothing else it was simply you were tendering the fall extent of the policy the pla recall not once as you see here's what happened i mean isn't that implicit in his bottom line i don't think so because we have now despite of what judge we can said i have signed releases from the plaintiffs indicating yes they are releasing the significance of all the parties moving along throws him so much so at that point we turned our policy for all of them and as a group they accepted it they came back and said here's how we're going to identify the  stated that there was the settlement and i question that i have seen nothing i see no releases nobody finding motion as my condition that they had no authority or no standing to during their pretrial settlement or was it terms of the agreement the terms of the agreement were we the defendants offer our policy or three million dollars policy a resolution of this there almost immediately the attorneys for the appoint of plaintiff stood up literally and said we agree and that was the extent of the conversation that was suddenly an offer that was the settlement exceptions after there literally the attorneys the plaintiffs and myself went into the parking lot area said to them on the premises in the parking lot i we have been in this case the nd i got in that case i called plaintiff's attorney and said hey we're brought in can we settle this directly with you we have a fifty thousand our policy there is no why ability can we give you a percent why do the math we have three hundred thousand and ten percent it's a one hundred and fifty thousand dollars passable judgment just five percent we want in the entire time we were attempting to settle with these downers and we get to continue to go after deborah schleppy for our amount in excess in that three million down or so and he will have you believe the  judge the plaintiff's attorneys that myself sat there and shook our head and said that's a good idea we knew from the beginning the extent the process why bill if it went south said then we c that mr will fall he's now taking the position that he is not going after the long fellow aspect of the claim for contribution was that discussed during any of the  they do we know it's not in the rose piece i believe says that if the judge is the one in this case the judge actively participated in that contentious  motion for good friday and he said i'm answering in order approving a good faith finding as to the township and finessed that only that is the judge's direct word stance one million seventy five thousand dollars he is clear it's a release for two thousand and seventy five downloads that i don't know what was going on there i wasn't included i would have loved mr no formal so concerned about those releases and you know some extinguish liability some don't he had the ultimate control of what was going to happen at the time how he helped the checks he helped those three million dollars worth of checks to the various parties and what did you do peter he paid them and now because he didn't pay them when he could have with recollection is that there was no mention of this contribution claim do we assume from that that it was resolved or do we assume from the lack of mentioning that it's  i presume the lawyers look at it and it says reciprocal it does the rd party claim for contribution to remain pending yet so it's not just the releases also that work what say you there over look it was was an unfortunate circumstance by me i was the one that has the duty and obligation to make sure that that was done but just as a release that doesn't that's not the contract that's not the brain the greenman is what more than capable release time this transpired your picture office and you have the time to review the release i'll admit and that's that's part of the problem it was over looked but that doesn't seal the deal with seals the deal in this case is what was the agreement in the back room what was agreed to by the parties and in fact one of the attorneys that myself in open court considered that we're playing a sneaky as to what a witness to this he was a part of this he was a participant in this this wasn't you know a fifteen minute pretrial he was dealing with other things he was literally in their room when the offer in the exact ince was made and again if you just do the time or if you do what the facts or in this case it's that that's the only reasonable explanation to the to the parties actions so the bottom line it was three million dollars that takes care of everything that was the time that was what was offered and your position is that that's the way judg mccann recalled it although it's a little cryptic in his transcript or in the transcript that's your position that's my position and i think our thirty two through or thirty three indicates again he he didn't say i find the settlement to have ten between the plaintiffs and the township only he phrased it in i find the good faith only with those two if only with those two defendants correct not signed by him it was sent to him afterwords the releases were also sent to him for review so these are consistent in november order and the december release are consistent the order preserve the contribution claim the release