but i look at the appendix here and i find it at least in the modifications it's quite clear that the other party is the gallus two and the modifications are signed by  poignance your point is under on dharma and under our brian i guess court and that this court has no jurisdiction but in this case we're dealing with a terminations of leases case in the supreme court which seems to tell us that the tribal and it should not be considered the united states should not be considered to be the party to the contract between  the disposal of property quote does not necessarily involve you sumption of contractual obligation in the quote an quotation is not to be presumed in the a taken by the government or on its behalf indicating such a purpose so i think that well maybe some precedents for the dismiss certainly leaves that narrow possibility that if you know if if the government somehow is assume the responsibility as it has an inter meeting this lease then then of contractual obligation end of quote and quote is not to be presumed in the absence of any action taken by the government or on its behalf indicating such a purpose late in in for twenty one begins the action of congress but it's a wise way down but it was a government official so it wasn't the indians that terminated this lease they had nothing to do with it i mean as a as the facts of this case are that in after the farming was done in two actions that reflect its independent judgment well i think your honor that that when you have the government only take in the responsibility only undertak every action that terminated this least that they can have some responsibility for what happened in this particular case now understand the facts after after the two thousand and twelve lease was completed they were trying to get ready to proceed with the lease in two thousand and thirteen so they start about in november th trying to ascertain trying to get a number from the bureau that they had to pay in terms of what to settle up for two thousand and twelve they make some checks out the checks come back because they have to be certified checks they spent about six months back and forth on them and then on for twenty two dollars after the bureau told them that they owed forty three thousand four hundred and sixty five dollars and had to be in a sort of  says vernon we have we got four letters here saying that they're going to terminate our leases because we haven't paid him for some other reasons so he says mr superintendent mr robert what should we do robert actually says forget about go farm here you've got the ahead and and inform the land so they proceed and you have to understand this is this is springtime in south dakota you have to get your crops in or you're not going to have any problems and that's they they knew that at the time so they go out and they expand thousands of dollars six weeks later on june rd they do tribal officials come out and tell them they're on trust they're trespassing and moody goes to the pine ridge office again and he says what's this all  you go ahead in continue to farm the land so he has so much so so my client then he says well i better call the aberdeen area office which is a supervisory office over pine ridge and he talks to a lady and she says no go ahead we i've got nothing on record show that you've been terminated from this release go ahead and farm the land so he goes back starts farm it again and then a few days later they come out and they say no get off of the land get your stuff out of here remove yourself or you will remove you you're you're you're you can't be on the land now what would happen to the land and perhaps after the crops your honor stayed in the ground they were harvested and they were so life and might buy the beer and we got nothing and that was our thousands of dollars that were taken to plant that crop which we got nothing back in return for that particular crop and that's one of the one of the primary arguments in this particular case i so if you just look at the face of the contract the original contract like if you look at judge yeah you can if you don't think that the quotation that i talked about the sufficient and the facts don't show that the b go back out there that had to be a revival of the lease in this particular case and now it's argument that the we in agreement was  existing and the law says that if there's a written agreement in existence there can't be a contract to buy one fica well i don't know how the written lease could have been in existence since it was terminated and i need to say that the leases at least some of these leases in this case say that if the lease is terminated it will be terminated fecche to billy immediately they don't have to wait thirty days which we did in this case then there's got to be something there's got to be a revival that lease was terminated and then it was revived for sixty seven dollars or eight weeks there before they probably right but then once you take them a lease and you start you start administering the lease the bureau has a lot of responsibility and they can they can contract made by him in the course of the destruction process and there are plenty of supreme court cases and cases in our court saying that in the context of indian law that we look to re of the government would not be treated as a party to the contract because these leases were entered into pursuant to the american indian agricultural resource management act and congress enacted that act with the specific purpose that the united states would carry out its trust responsibility and reflecting that the united states has a very unique relationship with the indians and it is a very unique relationship and the supreme court discussed this distinct relationship in here korea apache nation where in that case they the indians did try to argue that common law principles the common often to sherry rule should apply in an evidentiary issue and the supreme court said that the the trust relationship between the united states and the indians is very distinct and we can't actually just because in the a arma the congress has been civically said that when the united states is managing and enforcing these kinds of leases agricultural leases to be specific they really are only acting in their role as a fiduciary and a trustee they are the trust responsibility of the united states and promote the self determination of indian tribes by providing for the management of indian agricultural lands and the united states post reported contract well i think this court is held in cases like this and i gardened and when it affirmed o'brian that when we are looking at whether there is privity of contracts or whether a plaintiff can bring a case for breach of contract against the united states there must be pretty and the only way you can determine whether the united states is a party to a contract is by looking at the actual documents of the united states at that and i go and this case this court discussed and so i go carbons said that  the united states acting as a trustee that we know is here honoring her great it was but the plaintiffs in that case trying to allege a breach of contract claim against her because her dad was heavily involved in the oversight of this low income housing project in the arguments were very akin to the plaintiffs argument in this case which is the united states should effectively be held a party to this contract is no statute in that case that talked about the united states being a trustee no your honor but the arguments are very similar as far as plaintiffs really want desire that the united states should be held a party to the contract such that they can be sued for breach do you agree that if we applied section two hundred and sixty one thousand two hundred and sixty two of the restatement we are the united determine who is a party to a contract is by looking at the document itself and not and in this particular case the leases are in as good as you can see on appendix eighteen there between the movies and the indian land owners and the regulations define a lease as a written maybe your argument would be that goma in the government the supreme court at least for purposes of just the relationship between the united states and the private sector we displaced restatements to s or alternatively there's the government's just given never given any indication of a waiver of sovereign immunity and because of this particular absolutely or under the united way of or sovereign immunity must be explicitly alleges your honor was  immunity either under the act the act explicitly states that the united states does not waive its sovereign immunity and the only way that there can be pretty of contract in this case or the united states is waive the sovereign immunity is if there are parties in the contract and they are not here the facts of this case really bother me and it looks like the government to be a really messed around with the movies and so what should mr movie have done i mean obviously you want to say that they have no recourse to go to the court of federal claims to sue the government who is acting as a trustee but then what should have mr murray done at the time when he was getting these cancellation notices but then being told don't worry about those cancellation notices and then ultimately being told being evicted off the land what what was his recourse what was the reasonable thing that was entirely forseeable from this committee to do at that point in time we're out of the cancellation notices that were sent to him do indicate that he had a right to appeal and that is what mr moody should have said appeal where to the it would have notices of cancellation told mr modi and that was that they informed him of his appeal rights and that's what he should have done in this case he should have appealed to the regional director which then what he could have appealed that decision to the interior board of indian affairs or n p n appeals i'm sorry and then if  you could have then appealed to district court under an e p a standard of review so he is not left entirely without a remedy but he did not timely pursue it in this case and fairness considerations aside this is what congress seems to have intended under the personally act regional opera well i think throughout the statute in the findings in the purposed purpose portion that i cited earlier this was typically state that to the extent the united states is acting they are only acting in the relationship as a trust explicitly state that the united states does not waive sovereign immunity and that doesn't change the fact that in any given case the united states must on ambiguously wave sovereign immunity to be sued for damages and if the act doesn't waive it in this case it doesn't it must be the contract and the contract in this case doesn't absolutely if they are a party to the contract which in this case they are not and to get to plaintiffs next claim which is their oral implied in fact leaves your honour's we're asking about their regulations in this case  that the trial court relied on in the truck or dinner land regulations in this case opposing counsel said that on your only th when the plaintiffs received cancellation notices those were effectively cancellations but they were not the regulations in this case state that  cancellation notice is just you notice the cancellation does not become final until thirty days after the plaintiff receives that notice and then on the st day if they do not appeal that's when that decision becomes final and that's when the leases are cancelled so on april  in effect at this time they're well in or at least could not be created and beyond that no b a official had the authority to enter into a new unilaterally enter into a new orleans on behalf of the indians or the united states in this case because as i indicated the united states is never any waiver of sovereign immunity must be explicit it cannot be implied from the actions of the parties in this case and then finally to clean up rd claim plaintiffs a failed state a takings claim in this case your honor because  explicitly allege that they are entitled to prevail on their takings claim because the b i acted unlawfully or because the b i acted contrary to the regulations and this court's decisions in lyon raisins don't real energy explicitly state that if that that wrote the letter on april th terminating the lease they're the ones that revived the lease when they revived the lease however you look at it there had to be something that that that it was bureau people not not the indians so they made that particular agreement now they have authority as i say and i have cited the various provisions of the regulations in my brief about the authority of the of the of the of the bureau to take extraordinary actions to protect and make sure that the land is free generating and that's what they were doing in this particular case because they had to make sure that this land was farm and there was some money generated for it for the owners of the land to have when when the when the when we were thrown off the land on june soon after june rd there was the thirty days and expired couldn't appeal hat and so we didn't have any we didn't have any