Judicial admissions are limited in scope to factual matters otherwise requiring evidentiary proof, and are exclusive of legal theories and conclusions of law. Glick, 458 F.2d at 1291. The fact must have been unequivocally admitted and not be merely one interpretation of the statement that is purported to be a judicial admission. Jones v. Constantino, 429 Pa.Super. 73, 631 A.2d 1289, 1293-94 (1993) (finding no admission where “the evidence could be reasonably construed to admit of more than one meaning”); see also, Phila. Reinsurance Corp. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 2003 WL 1698892, 2003 U.S.App. LEXIS 6198 (3d Cir.2003) (“An unequivocal statement is one that is clear, unambiguous and expresses only one meaning.”); Glick, 458 F.2d at 1291; The Doyle, 105 F.2d 113, 117 (3d Cir.1939) (<HOLDING>). An admission is not conclusively binding when
holding that tribes did not waive their immunity by intervening in  administrative proceedings because any waiver must be unequivocal and may not be implied holding that admissions to be binding must be unequivocal  and anyway they may be disregarded in the interests of justice holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding that only deliberate clear and unequivocal statements can constitute conclusive judicial admissions