itself as an order in judgment and there's really no with the possible exception of one paragraph there's really no legal reasoning in in this document it basically serves the purpose of incorporating  subtle mind agreement into into this judgement so so why unless one takes what may be characterized as an unduly formal view of this separate document requirement why doesn't the serve as a separate document setting forth the judgment in this case i mean that there how could there be any any mistaking what the purpose of the served by of the day farmers is wrong it's bad luck but in any event in any event assuming it is good luck it cannot be the last of the case because there were different parties involved and  we were paying ninety cents they were not that price was reduced to seventy eight point five how can they complain simply because they are not being and have never paid the same price for their not requested one finally they were found that there is no abuse of this question it is exactly the same judgment it is exactly the same facts now there is the rule of the case  case there's a definitional issue the cancellation of some compensation that they would that they would be getting the how do you respond to that kind of those are two discrete issues not beginning the second argument that they make is a they lost certain benefits so to speak well the main looser of those benefits is the  right to those to those benefits it's part of the regulation and the regulation could have changed as it did and it changed by way of a settlement that is something that the government can do and normally those in civil case participated in the hearing they filed the motions they were heard and the farmers are basically raising the same issues in the case that are still alive and the farmers are doing that a farmers to use that phrase if you're not paying seventy eight point five cents what you're doing is two things you're depressing the price that the farmer should be receiving you are competing with the farmers united states with the subsidy that we give to the revenue requirement of the farmer so how does that additional proceeding has been scheduled how does that relate to the relief that is being requested here i thought i understood opposing something that this court lost keep in mind for the owners are supposed to be obeyed we've had a great deal of problems which are reflected in what gave rise to this decision this is this this settlement the only way that we could bring the government to settlement conversation was with an order issued after years of litigation and more than a hundred and then maybe they should hearings for contempt of the officers of the government and the reason for contempt was simple they never obeyed any of these three quarters face with contempt they reach the termination lost subsidize with the farmer with a higher price as the same time to stop the importation of of u h t milk which is fabricated in the united states with milk which is march march i thought you might want to comment on the separate document issue i know that was i think raised for the first time and have something of a briefing i don't think you've had a chance to comment on that i'd be interested in your in your position this is this is our position your honor we do believe that it is very clear as you said that this was the judgment that had to be appeal there's no question about it i think also that the is it is very clear that all the parties since the beginning the government the p r t a fake in the like in this case everybody took that as a judgment everybody will leave any argument regarding the independent is not the most is not that these are might result of a fair reading of the cases of this or so and i say this because the case of this record half consistently help that the the the independent judgment rule has to be used to uphold the distinction not to defeat it and that is the problem that i have in the analyses i have made and i must be inattention so what's the waiver here will usually this if i think the cases of this the court and the supreme court also recognize the possibility off and on affirmative weaver a waiver by