honor however the agreement between mr toro in the deviate wasn't for a blanket amount for the entirety of his time it was for purchase of information for specific distinguishable identifiable investigations so for example he would be going to columbia to investigate a target that would be subject to purchase of information when he returned provided the information as well as for specific non frivolous allegations of the implied in fact contract that will show offer in sept with the material provided in the motion to amend below it was not wrong it was not i'm prepared to the court favors resolution of the merits of the court's favor allowing an amendment when there has been no one to delay there's been no prejudice to the government and the government's really only arguing that futility of amendment and should the court  cured those deficiencies might have along those same lines as as both of my colleagues are pressuring you even in your brief to us the only thing that you have alleged anywhere that you would change about the amended complaint is on page six where you explain that you would identify the people who were trying track to with the nine hundred sixty specific agents that wouldn't solve the problem of the fact that this contract you only ever al one contract it was consummated according to your allegations in one nine hundred eighty six and all you have claimed you were willing to amend of the only thing you put forth follow were to us that you would do by way of amendment is give further detail when that nine hundred eighty six contract by naming the individuals involved the problem you have is that none of that could possibly help you overcome the statute of limitations problem that you have in more  that it worth it for the following reason that the agreement that was made between the dva agents and mr toro in nineteen eighty six was for reimbursement of this expenses in for eighty six in two thousand and fifteen never got a dollar compensation for helping you know in in the contract was in eighty six from eighty six to two thousand and fifteen he supply what is accepted to be useful valuable information to the government he never receives a was any breaches occurred between two thousand and nine and two thousand and fifteen wouldn't fact fall within the statue imitations and it leaves before two thousand and nine maybe subject to the statue imitations it would be futile but true you still did not allege in the original people who the person with authority to make a contract to all sorts of details that would be necessary find a contract which were missing from the original complain what if the court would grant leave to amend those specific allegations will be made with those same named individuals through their capacity as special you know we're told the court of federal claims that that's correct and that's if the statue of limitations has told this action i mean if you can't go forward with that then why should we allow you to amend what you rather i believe that the court will pull out of it to go forward after the member when it sees those claims that arose in two thousand and nine to the point of the filing that fall within the statue limitations that are separate convening meet may be hey you have made made all these arguments and presented adequate information at the trial court level i would have had that but my point of moving to a man i'll say one more time and you move to a man you should appreciate of the material at that point and you did not i did not you are but i would suggest that it's not a fatal flaw that the court dime went to these places out of his own pocket pain informants and he did all of this with north lehman of any kind that he's going to get get reimbursed from repaid well i would suggest to the court your honor that after the filing of the complaint that i believe that the court's concern about the lack of details is what wasn't repeated i mean this was the first time the complaint was sought to be amended you know what i mean by this your honor is the fact that eighteen months in we still have no idea who the agents with authority entered into the alleged contract with mr thorold what the letter terms were what date the alleged contents was a repeated issue here right now it's not a repeat issue really alleged things are necessary for a contract if there was a failure if there was a request under pursuant to that contract in two thousand and twelve to take certain action and he wasn't paid now in this particular case mr charles never made that allegation is never attempted to break apart any of the claims in the twenty nine year period for which he says he worked under the implied in fact contract so while there could perhaps be some  to a two thousand and twelve allegedly breach those are the other patients in the complaint and again we still have no idea how mr turow is determining that he supposed five million dollars in total for twenty nine years of alleged breaches  i'm curious and maybe this is something i can't talk about but that's the the in fact enter into contracts with informants which are promises to save money in return for certain services  da doesn't enter into into written contracts in which it promises to pay money and expenses each contract is different this actually brings me to mr toros next argument about the da manual and he  writing because first of all it's highly unusual but it's always in writing because put there should be no gaps in the understanding of the terms of the agreement so again i think that this idea that the da just enter contracts has no regard for any written documents and also poorly agrees to authorize commissions is this frankly not supported by the record or by any of the actual past history so here i feel like this is sort of a frivolous argument again and the breakdown of this complaint is really that there was one agreement singular agreement that over twenty nine years of activity for which mr turow claims it was not pay so again commits that reflect the understanding of both agents and the confidential source soon he paid for that that he really my understanding is that he was paid for that activity he was paid expenses was a compensation beyond expenses but my obviously before we filed a motion to dismiss internally whether or not we should answer the complaints we determine that mr torres allegations were completely inaccurate and that there was not just one agreement that govern the contact the conduct there under which he was actually compensating both competition and expenses as well that agreement was in writing and now that you're saying that's correct your honor with at least the agreement i believe that there were there was at least one agreement that there may have be  to the contract in place he was compensated so all of this has been consistent stars are positioned it was made known to the traffic flow and he's never alleged here that he wasn't properly compensated for some of the written agreement court mr toro is not alleging that he's owed commissions as was represented by the government he's not he's not making a claim under any written agreement right your honor mr toro has represented to me that there was no riddick remit that he was not aware of a written agreement that he did not enter into a rip if we have it so as far as mr toro from his perspective what he's represented to me is that he did not enter into a written agreement there was a rifle and everything both counsel cases submitted