good morning morning my name is rex palmer and i represent james smith and i represented him in the underlying tribal court trial james smith was driving the truck which was the vehicle that rolled over on highway ninety three when the spring broke the dump truck was owned by the sailor scrutiny college proceeded through several depositions and tried had been dismissed out based on the affirmative claims that they have no ownership no control over and no relationship with the school crossed claims against the school in title work so really the school and smith didn't choose tribal court but they were brought in by the passengers now but the passengers claims against me are not a tribal member and the school's cross claims against smith would not have jurisdiction in tribal court under the district cour personal jurisdiction which might be allowed or set aside depending on consent teacher of tribal subject matter jurisdiction that same vehicle or one like it with all the problems that caused it to go out of control and impossible to control when the spring because from the record it looks to me like it's like a community college that serves people live on the reservation so i'm not seeing it as a tribal identity even if it were some other issues but but i  think you you know the record better than we do and i would appreciate if you could respond to just for nettie's question i have the same question i want to understand if this is part of the drive to co other factors in determining arm of the tribe tend to go toward the tribe until you get the funding and this is the only thing i can find anywhere in the record about where they get their points off that's just my concern right and i think that however right and that classification would become important in discrimination cases where a statute is using a definition that expressly sets indians aside and you look to that definition as all the cases money would create a potential liability the tribe is like that insulated but still it all seems to end for the tribe other than the running engine and other than the fact that they were they were incorporated under not only the state law but  there is no relationship except as the sovereign there's no ownership in fact there can be no ownership and that's where i see this that is the cutoff point is that the only testimony on this matter sets that aside nevertheless claim relating to a highway accident over smith so i guess that's that's my concern you're going to get my vote on this case you've got to talk me out of that position but i'd like to let you do it but let me say before i get to that i also am really skeptical that the trust that the college can be viewed as a trival and it is and so i have a few different than for nettie's let me just put it on the table for you it's true probably i don't know but maybe they could even appoint tribal members i don't know they have to appoint tribal members ok that once they join them i think their duty is not the trial but to the college so i'm not entity but i'm happy to have you change my mind an argument let me start with your first answering your first question first in our in our view and as the district court determine the montana analysis you can get them out of it but you don't you don't contend do you that the dr can get the directive to one of these board members saying we want you to vote this way on this issue i don't i don't contend about the well being of the college the faculty and students considering that the tribal council retain the authority to pass further regulations to govern the conduct of the school i don't believe that's the case i think that the council ultimately has the control over the college and can revoke in fact the colleges charter and the documents that sound maybe they can revoke the charter maybe they can pass regulations that apply but it doesn't seem to me they instance with the board not with the tribe as i said and there may be another level control that the driver has some influence on to set regulations or to remove someone if they're acting improperly  that's not like day to day control and it's not even normal policy setting control right is not looking at extraordinary power there i think it's the ultimate regulatory and  control of the tribe exerts they've got that in their hip pocket that they can pass regulations but they don't they think it's the policy for the college do they not only did a basis but the founding documents show that the tribes ultimately intended to keep  aggressors that but it's it's our contention that even if the court review apply the montana analysis the consensual relation exception clearly says or would not apply in this case because mr smith in early consensual relation with engl i think that's the case i think that this relationship is at the heart of mr smith's claim against my client he's alleging in essence that my client invited him negligence instruction and that occurred on private property is found by the district court in this land we don't even get to the montana analysis we don't have to go there because because it does involve tribal land in the tribes have you could have thirty over over those kinds of claims just just to clarify something on one of your last comments on my question you mentioned that he under your consent theory that he has a consensual relationship with the school and he's making a claim carelessly am i right in that it was it was based on general court the reason that he was not permitted to drive the truck according to our set of facts of course his car cross claim against smith was dismissed prior to trial properly maintained correct and it's our position and i think the district court correctly found that those allegations concerning the conduct occurring on tribal property but we don't know welcoming of the truck with the view we have from this record that part of my concern on that they think that would be the case but i didn't see anything in the record that made out where the truck might have been maintained the smithsonian allegation concerning non tribal property is the fact that the action occurred on u where we'll give you thirty seconds to sum up our response to any point hear we know that the instruction did occur on the roadways mandatory training and mandatory hours had to be logged on the roadway i'm roadways on the side of the road for they kicked the tires that's where they check the oil these are all things that had to be done college is submitted