may have a moment your hon quote realistically it would seem the better of you not to rest any distinction upon what may be no more than a scrivener's strategic device or an in inadvertence and quote and under those circumstances when that exists it's it is fair for for the reviewing court to go beyond the direct language of a general release and what the record makes clear is that we have here it was a mistake not to carve out the federal court action and when one looks at the record before judge the district court every piece of information reflects that nobody from m know side perspective contemplated the release of the federal court action all the paperwork say it i'm excluding the carve out language of the general is but the e mail correspondence the  stipulation of discontinuance the settlement agreement itself every piece of paper reflected that the intent of the parties was to settle the state court action and it makes sense because these are very different claims and just be clear i am very mindful of the court's summary orders trump in the other two subsequent decisions and i and i am not arguing that the language for example in th simulation of settlement that the settlement agreement is not admissible is not admissible in any other litigation i'm not pressing that argument but collectively when one looks at the documents one sees that it was inadvertent and under those circumstances it makes sense to set aside the settlement agreement and loud and allow mr mattel to proceed with his federal claims and again these were very different claims one was for excessive force battery and excessive force where the primary damages were physical injuries and then the federal court action involved a fabrication of evidence claim the malicious prosecution claimed that dismissed but the fabrication of evidence with the primary source of damages is was the loss of liberty excuse me sweeping language you know whether you call from the beginning of time to the to the date of this generally if you have the same circumstances the arguments are fairly laid out and in both parties br if the court has any questions for me i'm here obviously but if not we rest on our argument joint i don't believe so but again the general lease does provide an opportunity to carve out any existing lawsuit or claims and that was that opportunity was not taken here and again counseled he was in fact represented by the same attorneys who filed this lawsuit and were undoubtedly aware of it and the fact that it's language doesn't make it meaningless no no  and the fact that it's boilerplate doesn't render it meaningless and in order to mean anything in the general release has to mean more than the stipulation of settlement and it's clear from the terms of it that it does the fact that it contemplates carving out other lawsuits shows that without that it extends to x it extends beyond the four corners of the personal injury suit unless there are further questions for me th form stipulation is of soco blomberg formerly not existed were who made these forms i don't know the answer to that thank you pretty quickly and then then john norns berg represented mr material there and the state court lawyers had no involvement there after ms west asked and we addressed this in our reply  the correct inadvertent yes it's a mistake it's a unilateral mistake and instrumentations prepared to do what it takes even if it means revoke rescinding that agreement to proceed with his federal claims they're very different claims if if anything and injustice took place he should have the opportunity to proceed with this federal action because a wrong was done whether a jury will agree or not that's for the jury to decide but a mistake was made thank you