this thing up and down a line by the british government to internal point of the army claim service to have records who in turn would not produce them whores and the question is why we were forced to file an action then and we did against the british government based on the facts the other way well maybe it's maybe it's more helpful for the court if i go back to what the situation was when they were seven was inactive at that time he definitely would not have had a remedy because someone in his situation in the plaintiff's situation  suing for conduct that he ledgers to be within the scope of employment could have tried to proceed against the united kingdom he would have been thrown out on sovereign immunity grounds he could have attempted to proceed against the individual however the individual was likely judgment proof and the whole reason that the native signatories got together and drafted the need of sofa was to provide a regularized process something that was predictable and orderly and familiar to the injured parties so that now the way that it works and it works the same for corp for play it's more as it would work for someone with who encouraged a similar injury in france or germany or italy or any of the nato countries meaning that under nato stouffer article eight to be a dramatic improvement it also to nato so far involves the what we call the receiving state in this case that's the united states it receives the british soldiers here it involves the receiving state and receiving state takes the lead  military that he was acting in within the course and scope of his employment and that on its face is enough to bring into play nato sofa there's not any additional information that this comes up very rarely in the united states it is primarily a means of dealing with claims that come up in europe where most american soldiers are stationed and typically the typical nato sofa claim is a car accident although it's also probably not that uncommon  i must address one point that the plaintiff made about the documents that we referenced in footnote four of our brief and we referenced them only to point out that in fact the arguments that we've made here have not been sprung on the plaintiffs by his own complaint you can see that he engaged in an extensive correspondence with both the army claims service and the ministry of defense british ministry  the documents that we referred to and which we are prepared to french to the court if the court would like to see them are all letters that were sent to places counsel there's no secret information it's information he ha does not apply foreign governments doesn't apply to individual foreign individuals however it is actually true just based on that if we turn to article eight paragraph five the nato sofa that's that's what we say  and it's on page forty four of the excerpts of record claims and other than confusion tressel claims are not at issue here arising out of or a missions of members of the force then of the performance or official duty that how would he really get this information well if in fact the individuals were not acting within the scope he could proceed against those individuals directly under he would have diversity jurisdiction he could proceed in district court and he could e out of whatever it is that you're trying to get information i am not familiar but i will tell you i am not a for expert within my office there are people who are but i am not one of them but certainly it would be enough your honor to say that for you on  does not apply to claims against the united kingdom of these individuals you know as i said we are prepared to pay provided information to the court the court would like to see if the plaintiff's claims counsel already has that information but one way he could obtain the information he is seeking which i think is somewhat different from the limited information we have would be to according to the army claim service he could he could actually contact someone he has dealt with in the army claims service united kingdom for actions within the scope of employment  seriously seriously injured because of this action by a british citizen in the united states under washington state law secondly we did everything that the law requires us to do to perfect our claim against the british government they were served twice we followed their instructions regarding to seeking information from the army claims service we did everything possible that they were instructed us to do and now we're caught in a situation where which is clearly clearly clearly outrageous and it's in the application of united states a line through a united states citizen who has done nothing wrong either by way of conduct forcing this event or by way of action in any court anywhere causing for this result here we have provided the facts in the complaint those are the only facts now if she has letters from somebody i don't know where she got those she had to get them from lawyers as citizens of the united states if we are going to be put through this kind of outrageous conduct and parent kind of thing how much of the government spends and sending masooma out here to argue this case why are they seeking reimbursement by the way course of the state of washington authorizing a claim of this or against the british government under the laws of the receiving state which is the state of washington further that in the absence of anything we ha notice of the claim that we're making a claim and they're against them directly they referred us the army claims service the army claimed servicemen buffets at this point will not provide us any information now and looking at the case and fin