versus the u s reclamation so we take up our st case for argument and that's hastings versus the united states postal service filing system presents a new fact pattern for this court in relation to doctrine cases well the fact pattern might be new the congressional intent has remained the same car make sure i what the u s attorney got was an e mail notification that a filing had been made correct through the that's right and that e mail notification itself did not have attached to it the summons and complaint but rather the essentially a virtual on pull up well that's that's that's why i want to make sure i understand the facts this is not a case in which you emailed the u s attorney and said attached is a summons and complaint correct link in that it would take them to the docket correct ok or if from a from a visual user standpoint it's almost instantaneous right now i know but you know i don't want to i want you to be able to make your argument but i think if you if you're saying the facts are important i need to have in mind yes thank you your honor certainly this court's task is in construing rule fifteen c to use government notice provision to determine congressional intent that process be to livered were mailed to in our case the united states attorney in the district where the action is importantly though there's this statute provides or doesn't give any particular method of mailing or delivery for that to take place is sensually the way we interpret congressional intent is at least back in one thousand and sixty six when that government provision was inactive and that included essentially all means of getting proper notice certainly at the time it was us mailing there wasn't email fax didn't really become common until the mid and eighty s i believe and certainly the only mailing surface because you were fed ex didn't exist would have been the us mail but the congressional intent and a notice provision as opposed to rule for where you need some sort of shock value or immediacy a need to respond to this to provide the government notice counsel aren't there are other rules that have been explicitly amended to accommodate the electronic technology this is it this is not this is not one of them this rule has not been changed at all to accommodate that kind of technology is that true that is true and i know for example rule five has been amended in order to incorporate the courts into the court's electronic filing system or even email with consent of the parties but rule for has not rule for has not and or doesn't that does not suggest that the drafters of the rules when nobody knew about this stuff judge to respond he could you argue their case right we're going to pass his question is i think brings up a different point which is that the rules committee does know about this stuff it's done it made a change to rule five didn't make it change to rule four and didn't make a change through fifteen so what does that tell us i think what it tells us is that the congressional intent never changed that it back in one thousand nine hundred and sixty six all available means of notification were in compas by the terms delivery and well but we're not really talking about i've as somebody who served on a rules committee we're not really talking about congressional intent here would call congress did was fail to disapprove these the real question is what is the rules committee intend and since the rules committee made some amendments can we now conclude that they intended to amend fifteen c to subsequent year i don't think there was any need to  rule for has an entirely different purpose there needs to be personal delivery in fact it's got to be accomplished through either the u s marshal service or someone over the age of eighteen that means it needs to be personally served even the government acknowledges and it's pretty funny think this court miles observes that you don't have to have that sort of formal government service under rule fifteen the lynchpin as the supreme court stated is notice and as this court stated in miles notice kind of drives the bus that need not be formal so i want to go back to your description of what happens why is providing the government with a link from which it takes action it can be then directed to the docket where you can find these items delivery because that's what the government's used to under our local rules and some of the local rules provide for service that way but this is the this rule uses the word delivery and so michael i'm having a hard time viewing it i get an email it says you can find this if you'd like to and here's how you do it is that delivery it may be service for all five purpose but is a delivery but at least for the united states attorney it's delivery because since two thousand and six they would have been required as officers of the court attorney roll fifteen i don't think there is any difference between service and delivery it's the fact that it was sent to the united states attorney who had certainly had notice from day one of a box where you're not you're not content you're not lying the question tell me why the language of the rule enters the question because i think in this the main one delivery are not ambiguous terms i think they're commonly understood by practitioners and as they're used throughout the problem a i think these days people acquire a email to mail people understand that when you're emailing i mean people feel responsibility to read their emails they respond to the emails i mean that's it is developed to be something that's even more common to the chagrin amend his pen regular mail i mean i've had a person who refers regular mail because if i receive in any off and i don't click on it and i don't read the court's ruling for example in a different case and i don't take notice about i think that extra step is required in order to understand what what exactly is being delivered what is what is the documents that that doesn't undercut your argument i mean we get now with internally these notices and their motions by counsel and we're supposed to click on  delivery it has to deliver something i would think in the way you interpret rule have to be so anything has to be delivered other than an e mail that just says hey there's something else that you can you know click into because my analogy is if you got a letter in the mail that said we filed a complaint today and you can find it by clicking on the in the enclosed link i wouldn't view that as delivery of the complaint and so i'm not sure why to your point and i'm not sure why good just getting the notice is delivery it may be service but it's not delivering so better but i'm bothered by your broader argument that we shouldn't interpret mail because the th circuit case at least unpublished to be sure suggests that if i faxed you a copy of the summons and complaint i would have delivered it again and again and you were actually there get a physical copy they they pop circuit but it's i'm sorry maybe still be persuasive but your point your honor in terms of like for example effects emily again the court has interpreted the term male to not include facsimile in the context of how we do interpret it term delivery not to include facsimile i don't believe there's a case on that point but in the country but in way over says united states the court looked at the term deliver in the context of rule for and it said delivery require choir's a personal delivery and i think it's important to interpret the terms consistently that same terms used throughout the for a little procedure i think it's important to interpret the same terms consistently and not interpret them differently for purposes of different rules is there a problem of potentially creating a lot of confusion that point that points well taken your honor process when we're talking about process it's usually the original complaint in the summons and that's governed by rule for rule five which was referenced by palin's counsel governs typically service of subsequent pleading true the liberals do not provide that the rule was what do you make of the fact that rules fifteen see to doesn't just say serve served in the matter described by rule for it's for he says mail for example it doesn't say registered mail that's true your honor and you know i don't know if that's an omission but i an intentional mission or not but i will reference the committee notes which say you know notice in the manner they're described see rule it and not in the context of the government require certified or registered mail and this is only something that applies to the government so they must amend something different and rule for true but i think they met us mail i also just know your honor that you know we're hearing asian in this sort of tortured interpretation of a government notice provision based on a result that was entirely avoidable and there was opportunity upon opportunity to properly prosecute this case from the get go this was not the defendant here was the proper def even improperly to serve somebody they probably would have complied with the literal provisions of for all fifteen see why because whenever you see a government entity whether it's the united states an agency an office or even a federal and i'm running surely out of time i don't know if the court has any more questions for me thank you ca purposes of the general notice provision it is not however for the government notice provision and i say to the johnson versus united states postal service came well he said the point i think is is more direct had you simply mailed it or store delivered it sometime within this nine month period we wouldn't be here today right that is true your honor the other day i don't know and i don't know whether it was you or prior counsel but i think that it does seem to me we're here we're here with this is an avoidable satisfied the government notice provision i don't know of a method that's more secure then the electronic filing system all registered users to the court gets to use it the court doesn't have to mail out its order it league to the attorneys computer that to me leaves much less of a margin of error than even personal delivery on a secretary that may forget to give a t v or to a fax machine that can get easily lost in the copy room this goes directly to the u s attorney's computer whether they choose to click the link or not really isn't relevant but it truly is a virtual on follow up it's been i think within the confines of rule fifteen see the government notice provision it has been both delivered and it has been mailed the government knew literally from day one that they were going to be the proper target in a law suit