i understand what you're trying to say but i look at the statutes and they speak to me about the government's litigation position now is that is and can be abused by a federal agency in lots of ways but being abused by a federal agency doesn't guarantee were route to a claim under th hyde amendment i demand seems to me is tied to litigation and this case the litigation was probably as a criminal indictment that's not something the f a a can do so i think i see the premise of your argument that somehow this reaches the f a a i don't get the connection i can help you court stated and this is not the holding in the but at page two fifty six and thirty one it is permissible for courts to consider the conduct of the investigation in order to provide a context in which to assess whether a prosecution was and this only makes common sense to me if the court is asked to decide whether the position of the government was vexatious or invalid faced how can the court decide that without looking at what went on before the grand jury when asked to do so in a case where at least the kind of showing we have made is made of something terrible went wrong here finally there is another case you're on it's a district court case out of oklahoma not binding in this court but it has been followed everywhere that it's been considered it has not been disassociated from and that's the gardner case you know very many kids we cited and argued on this point in our brief that's kind of twenty three attacked by the agency so the court went on to grant limited discovery not unlike the discovery that we were seeking here and again i respectfully submit if this or it were to rule as a matter of law as we request that it  permissible under the hyde amendment for the port to look at grand jury testimony and the conduct of the agency and the court here specifically ruled that the motives of the agency are relevant and that's fair we submit if solved then secure that hundred in this case and that is that unlike every other hyde amendment appeal that i'm aware of in this circuit and others there really is no record on this case was resolved by just missal before record shows you that we properly move before the trial judge for leave to conduct what we call limited discovery frankly that i agree that the authorities clearly show the judge who now or has  i've never been here before i enjoyed this and i appreciate you listening to me and taking your time you'll have some time for a lot of things in the record ve are going to have a citation we presented to you as part of our submission mr right carse revocation they only cited five discrepancies four of which are my hands and can be cured by replacement parts for my repairs dishing scroll like where it should have been as opposed to where it was there is evidence that this helicopter even though twenty forty one because as i look at the indictment through out there their particular references to this being represented to be serial number twenty forty one only twenty forty one isn't there it's a lot of parts put together make a helicopter and maybe you know helicopter  sensibly intended to repair twenty forty one however the helicopter they produce was in fact third manufactured from spirit military surplus part registration when they were told by the f a a that their craft was counterfeit that they ignored that is structured and instead transported the helicopter twenty two thousand or twenty questioned in seattle claiming that they lost their original air release certificate and therefore under a thirty one c they were entitled to simply buy that claim to get a new copy presentation they did an end run around the requirements of twenty one thirteen twenty one thirty one twenty one thirteen sorry they instead of following the clear procedures that they and if which are just quite difficult and in fact then contracted the machine to the forest service falsely telling the forest service it was twenty one forty one when it was not a helicopter flew for about a week under the contract and then was removed from the contract because it's of the ph i had in fact early on after the crash begun to repair the helicopter this in turn would be supportive of the claim that this was indeed original twenty and so that there was a repeated pattern of false and fraudulent claims with respect to that helicopter that were clearly designed put it in a position where it could was no prosecutorial misconduct the district court's finding that there was no showing that the prosecution was pursu misconduct presented there and in any event would not have eliminated the entire helicopter using surplus parts from the military so long as those parts conform upon inspection in texas and f a a authorized repair stations if they all authorized repair station for you  another answer a final answer to that same question is that we have a decoration a record for mr boat right to get his work correctly the f a a regulations permit the fabrication i'll use that word as opposed to force the cation of