jurisdiction and john i have a question about why the removal what's appropriate the district court sent there was federal question jurisdiction and then i had the authority under the and that government was the one that removed the case in the court right and you didn't seek remain and i'm asking what is the basis of our jurisdiction which i think we have an independent duty to look into that in i believe if you don't know the answer form of the so called regulatory rule was a valid exercise of the district court's equitable powers i'm sorry counsel can you go back to the removal jurisdiction question that i asked the beginning and tell me why addressing the jurisdictional issue a little bit more but i would like to just state for the record that because i performed the removal a i have a nice che and the reservation of jurisdiction by the district court on all matters that pertain to compliance with regards to the what is now the settlement agreement now consent decree and that's why i started off this argument reminding the court that the regulatory of cruel was validated by this court as an equitable remedy that is the very same issue that is being discussed today although kind of shuffled under the papers in two thousand and thirteen when the consent decree settlement agreement consent decree was executed the parties agreed to defer that regulatory  this court noted because i stood before this court challenging the regulatory of cruel not only as a as a factual not only on on the facts but on the law and i are you to this court that it was not this court said that it was a valid exercise so when the court when this this decision came back there was an a lot of a litigation on the compliance with the regulatory cruel and i challenge the both factually and i continued to challenge it regally while there was even while there was even a court case pending before the supreme court to deal with the regulatory cool the case  was in compliance was litigated i believe very it was contested at every area and there filed that obtained the stay that's they provoked the parties to come to the table and to create the settlement agreement which you know about because it was  into the argument of rest judicata that case argued this the same things that intellect is are arguing today excuse me notice and comment we didn't have notice and comment for the settlement if we didn't have notice and comment for the administrative order we didn't have notice and comment for the regulation twelve and you said that they were  timely and dismissed on the merits that's what happened here they really collaterally attack the judgement by filing a claim in state court saying notice and comment have been have not been provided and i returned to the court from the settlement by the date of the execution of l balance that is within the settlement agreement a new price order which is exhibit two enters into effect on november th two thousand and thirteen and there is going to be a accept i'm not going to contest your stiction i'm not going to you have jurisdiction you go ahead judge and you deal with this case so when you were asked originally your honor you know we have we're looking at jurisdiction independently we had we i made sure i i tried very hard to make sure that the federal court had jurisdiction the issue of jurisdiction i'd like to say h court below had jurisdiction and i believe that in terms of appellate review this court also has jurisdiction to go on and i think i'm i'm almost done with my time because i see that the clock is ticking to two and a half minutes i'd like to address the question that your honor posed a little while ago about the about whether there was you know a federal issue right and the i must say that there is no need for compliance with state regulatory details to put in that that deferred regulatory of cruel order and the reason is because general matter there is no no there is no need to go into state because all state requirements because all words all we're talking about is notice and  all i understand that intellects counsel hasn't been here for the full case i have stood before this court and the court below for twelve years on this case and i can tell this court without hesitation that there were that the act of the equivalent of apa the state opera was fulfilled and we came to the court and we told the court upon the injunction we've done of these things we've done the hearings we've given the notice we've we've asked for the parliament to court the court's decision in this case that's on appeal now and saying there was substantial compliance sense not necessarily right yes court look we did this we did that we complied with all of the the requirements to put in you know the regulation twelve and any other orders however for the  pleading is irrelevant it could have been said whatever the point is this is the jurisdiction the court exercise in providing the remedy and it says so repeatedly in word about  the ability to  cents or three dollars and th in the worst case scenario for us if i may finish my thought the government is saying that i am only supposed to hoop given present