that the five year statute of limitations has been suspended by the wartime suspension of limitations act and that act applies to a variety of scenarios one of them is a case of fraud against the united states but the only f alleged here is against a private company known as dr pak another isn't the case involves the property of the united states but it doesn't the district court thought it did but the government on appeal has expressed the conceit of this point now the one way in which it could have applied however is if the offenses were committed in connection with the performance of a contract or purchase order and that contract was directly connected with some of congressional authorized use of military force that was then in effect which means either what's been called the afghanistan authorized use of military force or arguably the government thinks or we don't the iraq authorized use of military and there's no evidence of any such contract or having any such direct connection did there's no clear evidence a trial of any contract at all well there was testimony of the umbrella the umbrella contract well the there we don't know what the terms of the contract were so it's hard for us to tell if there's a direct connection between the fences charge and the contract is that hasn't been proved because we don't know what the contract says but mr stewart testified that it was too because they were twenty to twenty eight thousand people short of their manpower and in order to fulfill their obligation to the department of the army for the global war on terror why isn't that enough with regard to the umbrella contract packs or services in the minister in the army reserve recruiting assistance program so let's say the offenses were committed in connection with the performance by docket back one of the other of these purchase orders the question does either of the purchase orders have any direct connection with either the authorized your says a military force no neither of them says anything about iraq iraq or afghanistan neither says anything about september eleventh or al  taliban the government hangs its had on one passing reference in one of the purchase orders to the so called global war on terror but nothing in the purchase order claims that this global war on terror is the part is the purpose of the purchase order or the recruitment program itself it just says challenges remain i also know that the you know as i understand it under the more narrow two thousand and eight and then men there has to be interact connection to one of two either iraq or the afghanistan situation and not something else yes it's directly connected or relate action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the united states why isn't this directly or connected or related to that well it's directed to the those responsible for the september eleventh terrorist attacks and those who  aiding in assisting them it doesn't it doesn't apply to for you know other other acts of terrorism committed by other people for other reasons well the actual authorization says that the purpose of the authorization is in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations organizations or persons why aren't on the the recruitment of these reservists directly connected or related to that by a preponderance of the evidence well the most that can be said about the recruitment of the reservists  and the and any connection is that the conflicts may have caused local reserve units to become depleted as a reserve units were called up to active duty and the program was then created to keep the local units men so as not to lose funding this testimony to that from docu pac and paid sixty three of the record on the dock the conflict did not cause the purchase orders to purchase orders were not for recruiting soldiers for example to fight in afghanistan the reserve had to be maintained as a reserve and so the conflict is is at least one step removed from the purchase or it's not a direct but rather an indirect connection with an intervening call us now so even assuming that the word direct modifies passwords even assuming it modifies connect and related you seem to really be parsing related which even if it's directly related it's a pretty broad term well directly good morning our scarth back your behalf united states the united states admits that there is sufficient evidence and basis in the record for this to court to conclude that there was a contract in existence between duckie pack and the army reserves and we do that's evidence oh but let's light on the more general one actually not with the army reserve but was a national guard or with respect to the national guard and then there was a kind of sub or a delegation or something through the task orders roll long time since i've been a trial judge but that says if you have a document that says something you can't have testimony because that's not the best evidence of what the document itself says but perhaps i mean but but also i think that i don't think   about the need i mean he said this came about after nine eleven and that act in both the task force she can attest were in the testimony talked about how the reserves are actually becoming operational they were the ones on the front lines fighting in combat in both afghanistan and  iraq the government thinks the global war on terror falls under both iraq or afghanistan both of them combined is a better argument but if we had to pick the one protect pertaining to afghanistan really does speak more to the global war on terror are the one george the one you were referencing and that has no geographic limitation that in the one in iraq talks about is this for combat operations in iraq the afghan i call the afghanistan one but that did not have such limitations relation is broader than connection and so i think that that that does not have to be a connection just has to be a direct relationship those are really my main points but i did want to address one i would say potential elephant in the room that has not been brought up by any party including the united states and its answer in brief but three of the four counts occurred in two thousand and seven which is before the amendments to the ws l a and so there is an argument the government would submit that three of those four counts can be upheld under either version the prevention which was just war in the vast majority of case law said that that's not in your brief it's not either but it but it is we're  at least was extremely worried about that which is why they did the amendment wrecked but the the government has sided case law pre two thousand and eight for its support of its argument that were then showing that the case most of the cases the majority of cases found that the those two authorizations met the definition but we certainly don't you know your view we don't need to reach that issue in order to affirm yesterday but it is out there and if the court wanted supplemental briefing that might be a good idea if it gets that far but we as we said in the beginning of this should can be resolved under as brief but under the two thousand and eight worsen i guess the reason this case looks somewhat disturbing is that it's a use of  the you know toing statute that is at least unusual because the it appears that the made purpose of it was really that when things are going on overseas in the middle of a war don't mean i think they were talking about the one of the reasons the program beginning was that they were undermanned by about thirty thousand people i know that's why they had it but but if so it's this is in many ways just to run i argument that that's certainly something that's there and maybe that has to do with what directly means maybe directly means something that has to do with the you know the the physical prosecution o the war rather than this thing that's all going on in the united states and isn't really subject to anything special about its being a work contract i would disagree that it goes to the point i think  yourself force in iraq has terminated with the president's proclamation in two thousand and ten and by that by that proclamation five a kind of five years after that you still come out soon comes out ahead of the time directly mean and others i hear what we have is a provision for gang people into the air into the reserves to make it more possible to get more people on the front lines and some point but the people who are getting getting into the reserves are not going directly to the front lines that's not the purpose right you know and one can imagine many other indirect effect on commerce the holding of that case is no longer observed with respect to the commerce clause or the test of direct versus indirect is no longer applied that's a pretty new deal case where that was that was the case but it still is the best or definition of a director in a case where you do need to make that distinction as you do in this case the best definition that we could look at includes definition to distinguish between direct and indirect and we would submit that any  know as as your honor explained that he you know you go into the reserves you're not going you're not being called into the conflict itself you're just being called into the reserves as reserves and this argument that you're making man was this made to the district court that this contract existed but it wasn't directly related to the authorize use of force majeure for make that argument to the district court or council of the district court did your predecessor ever make that argument in that i don't i don't think the issue came up i think it was it was argued in the statute that the statute of limitations was not suspended and it was really that clause that requiring a direct connection or direct relation was was relied on in making the argument but i don't much united states