for the secretary of agriculture the pick for consent decree makes decisions fine adjudicator under track a or the arbitrator under track b final can finding on both claimants and the department subject to only limited review by monitors who made or what the parties bargained for and the consent decree they put in are substantial procedural protection that is reviewed by a monitor that is something that occurred in this very case the monitor looked at this and that unfortunately there wasn't an additional confusion in which the monitor say they win they get fifty thousand dollars but they think boy i could have got more i want to say you know track b now we don't want that and then the other thing it seems to be designed is so that you know we want to move this process along so once you submit your completed claims package then the facilitator has to you know move it in the track a or b in things have to happen from that in we don't want to kind of undo all of that so so you know we want this decision to be final are those really the purposes of this the those are there are two primary  understood but there is one hundred eighty day limit to submit a claim after the consent decree was entered right that's correct and he submitted his claim originally about one hundred twenty days and point back in time when the facilitator could have made a change and put this put it into a different track per the person's request that we have a separate merits argument i want to make sure that it's clear that separate and independent from our authority argument that package yes claim packages of defined term in the consent decree rice defined j a ten paragraph d their unit says that a claim package will include playing sheet an form is not a claim package because there are other things that you have to submit you have to submit a declaration right to showing proving that you complained about discrimination  he wants to go under track it ok but my question is this doesn't he also have to submit a declaration proving that he complained of discrimination during the relevant time period i believe that what what you're referring to your honor is the thing that is at j fifteen thirty seven where that documentation is there isn't that the separate declaration i don't believe so your honor i'm answering it as as best i can i believe that the evidence in your truck a keep in mind track day is a very lenient standard substantial evidence you have part two you have to check all of the different boxes the show that you are a member of the class and then it says at the very bottom of the page you must attach to this claim sheet documentation proof for each item you check in part of that proof is did you file a complaint of discrimination against us that's granted that can't be just one your word you have to file a copy of a complaint that you filed were declaration from somebody who's not a family member that says that you complained about discrimination or copy of course spondon but you are then i again part of the track a situation is the claimant puts one the claim form is final in irrevocable it says at the time that he submit this completed claim package so you could submit this claim form one so temblor one in you could submit a declaration on september seventh that's  from you know your pastor that says he complained about discrimination and these are the details right that the fact that you could submit additional information to support what is already a claim i don't think makes it  claim package you have to have this form and proof by a declaration or other documentation that you complain about discrimination to be complete those of the consent decree contemplate it doesn't say you have to submit all of those sitting simultaneously so doesn't the consent decree contemplate that you can send in your declaration on september one and then you that is it j thirty nine and forty is the necessary extra stuff under paragraph five d of the content degree it is his iteration of i was discriminate i farmed it this relevant here i suffered discrimination and that's that ch description of how he suffered discrimination or benefit out patient in the lower benefit lets how he suffered but it's doesn't say that he complained of it during that time period this consent decree says that is show it to me i a declaration he's checking this to say this is the way he's going to go about proving his claim a decoration executed pursuant to that you by a person who is not a member of the claimant family which states the person at first hand knowledge that while attending a u s d a listening session or other meeting with the u s the official  in the record right the declaration is a separate document again you're out of the bet the best i can say is that everyone in the administration process understood the documents that you have before you on these four pages of the j to be a complete in it's a consent decree that does not say that your completed claim package is your claim election for it says that your completed claim patchen packages your claim election form plus this declaration plus any supporting documentation why isn't reasonable reading of this consent decree to say that you can supplement with supporting documentation your claim election form so if you send it in on monday you can complete your claim package by sending in more stuff on tuesday ok i think you permitted in two different ways i think you could supplement with any additional information if you had any time the process was in allowed you to enable that however i don't think that the fact that you could supplement prevents this from being complete as it was filed and the adjudicator the monter and the adjudicator get all treated as a room why wouldn't he why didn't he the monitor understood what he was reviewing it understood the plaintiff's counsel and maybe misunderstood the plaintiff's counsel wanted to keep in under the current track that's the interpretation he got from the facilitator there's a footnote in the monster's decision afoot at one twenty five why would the monitor even raise the possibility because it wasn't possible because in the petition premonitory view that was raised as a possibility sure there's no question he tried to raise that as one of the bases he said you were wrong to track a and oh by the way i wanted to switch to track because the monster tried to pursue that issue got information from the facilitator and arguably misunderstood that information and kept in his track and it went back to  in then submit a letter or a week later and says ok here's some additional documentation here's this declaration for a minute non family member and yes i left my form blank that's because i was still thinking about it i'm choosing track b and he does all of that and it's within one hundred eighty day period can the facilitator just say oh you didn't put anything on your claim form so you didn't submit the completed claim package i'm not putting it in either track this isn't complete i'm going to pitch it in the circular file we spent i think you would again we're within the within the the time frame to to submit a claim i a clear and manifest air right i'm looking at the language of twill be three you have a clear manifest to her right which gives the monitor the power to which gives a minor in the monica corrected a screening decision by the facilitator right and has result under be the cop process under it is not an error that causes a manifest in justice that's what the monitor decide now why isn't that a quote a violation of originally chosen be ok got that yes right then you get to the final to the to the good to the district courts now on one page one ten where the district court and he says the original mistake he fired that was that there was a violation of the consent decree which required the facilitator to transmit to the arbitrator the claims under beat we've got language that seems you could read this lame which is inconsistent but you could also read it as consistent and why would a judge say the error here was not on or in his original choice of sending it to be does anybody sort of monitor how they're doing i mean i believe that the focus in the in the sort of the monitoring of the monitor if you will is one fraud prevention and primarily but what about and you're stuck with that and in fact even the arbitrator when we get to the end of the study says i can't do anything but go to court so he goes to court and the government comes in and says for the first time i owe all these people w that the government's not trying to hide any any awareness of that response overall judge table is that yes this is it an enormous volume of claims coming through a process when you look at any individual case and you have finality provisions there can be errors that may appear to be gross the parties bargained for a finale provision that at the end of the day says look you we have a check in this in place here with a monitor you get to go to a monitor you get one shot with a monitor before an operator but he actually suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages because of the past discrimination of the u s d a he correct that there's no question that his initial election form is a mess but as judge wilkins correctly pointed out it's not complete when it was sent in there were no documentation he corrected he corrected it in september of one thousand nine hundred nine well within one hundred eighty period to say to the facilitator please put me in track b i have the losses to substantiate recognizing then as he does now that if he doesn't substantiate those losses by a higher burden of proof than is required in the track age occasion face but he gets nothing he's turned down the thirty fifty thousand dollars check he's willing to stand by his the merits of his claim let me ask you a record question here because the only thing that i saw in the in the appendix was the leather i didn't see any additional documentation i didn't see this declaration supposed to be filled out that proves that you made a complaint for discrimination is any of that in the record either in the trial court just wasn't put in the there because he wants to present this in the one day i betrayed that is conclusive that my client has always maintained he had a track be claimed there's no doubt in my client's mind what he had but you know there was a mistake by the facilit hundred ninety nine that mistake the length of time is almost mind boggling we go seven years later and the facilitator it's been the issue is now before the monitor and the issue before the monitor was miscommunication to the monitor said mr mcguinness has dropped any claim to a track b and that's so then we get this a few more years passed by and we get this lengthy ruling from the monitor because his count my clients counsel at that time do it's not a review of the overall purposes of the consensually for the court to find that he's a that the chaplain paragraph thirteen permits permits the enforcement of any provision of the co any provision of the consent decree includes the writ the judi's of the facilitator to correctly assign the case so so it was reviewable under under paragraph thirteen the district court mistake a mistake because of i don't know overwhelmed with with word incompetence but whatever reason there was a mistake in my client is now being asked to bear the burden of that mistake whereas you know it's very simple  i'd just like to try again by focusing on the systemic issues here the parties bargained for a consent decree in which there were substantial procedural protections built in monitor reviews the primary thing that he's ordered for at the end of the day included a finale her vision that is about as broad as you can imagine in nine a v the forever waived the right to come into court we're at the tail end of the picture process here so maybe this isn't going to be a flood of claimants coming in but we're talking about thousands twenty thousand people under the process here and they can all there's all kinds of errors that can be alleged in the process in the robot case which this court summarily affirm the allegation was that the arbitrator under under track b was unconstitutionally discriminatory discriminated against the claimants there are all kinds of claims there eric they can be race the point is that the finality provision at some point says enough is enough and let's just make sure we were all in the same way there was no manifest injustice if that's a that's a huge leap but ok well let's just assume ok i had said i'm just now is it the government's position that that decision cannot be reviewed under