controversy on the interpretation of this grant and in particular a provision in the grant which provides that it shall the grandchild continue for a of things in it but the principal concern is the provision that the taps agreement expires january twenty second if you will that's the princip section seven and i think the critical point is it does not say that it incorporates the renewal provision section seven and in fact it  anything to the first part of the sentence and we wanted to point out in the second circuit saviour's decision that decision cautioned the courts that were parties verge of posing interpretations of a document the court has to be careful that it gives meaning to each part of the document and we feel that the court in this case  i don't see any way around that the term in duration in one thousand nine hundred one could not last longer than two thousand and four now it could be renewed but that's not what are a lot of people who have similar grants that would be affected by this case no there are very very few i think on there maybe one two or three it's almost need to keep in mind that wasn't just poor the pipeline right of way there was also an additional highway write a play and additionally she had curiosity it's going to important yeah it's not a monumental sum of money and and actually our position has always spanned that this should have been easily settled and taking care of that it's  and to cut out the cia regulations and of course one of the b r d regulations is that there has to be a renewable application through the p r i and she has to be compensated under the the final thing that we want to point out with respect to that particular argument is that if the guy in a area director had intended the in the administrative settlement documents between the parties that the guy a list to be excluded from the renewable process why is there not a word that surely butler would receive not act twenty five u s c section three forty eight we think it would also violate the regulations so the answer the question is here yes there's even this with what i just said that it continues as alternative basis for the district court judge judgment and the point that we wish to make on that is that cannot be an easement on her property it is absolutely and all and void under the statute because there has never more and it cannot be effective as an incumbrance in with that your honor i'll reserve the remainder of my time here and three lawyers have you thought about settling this case your honor there are two lawyers mr knox not a lawyer but we have had settlement negotiations with the other side i know they're not admissible advantage of an individual native a lot cheat or failing to live up to its obligations over early earlier emerge into this is an attempt by this butler to unravel a comprehensive settlement of two pieces of litigation was miss butler was to dismiss her state court action is that we ask which raised compensation claims regarding the one hundred seventy four right away agreement that she'd given the pipeline and alyeska was to dismissed if the district challenge to the validity of suggest to the court that the proper interpretation of the word exists which the appellants have tried to emphasize somehow references the existing then existing term property and that's excerpt of record number eight there were four excerpts of record that i'd like to emphasize here that i think are critical to this on the argument to number eight number forty two number ten and number there's nothing in the regulations that says the right of way has to be for a term of years in the v i i has continued in control over the right away and would control renewable he has a forty the area director has authority to issue one in which in our view clearly shows that mr butler was fully represented adequately represented by counsel the fact she had three lawyers peter ashman peter ash and runner and during this whole process and this letter was written to david case who was the attorney advising the director of the bureau of indian affairs his letter on the record and it is on the record your honor and i'd like to just emphasize that that letter says that this is a settlement it doesn't say that there will be ongoing payments that will be due for future renewals or anything of that that to that will and that concluding paragraph is i believe that she understood the terms of the to send it to them voluntarily and without reservations so i think there's no real question here of of overreaching she knew what she was telling and she was fully advised by competent counsel number ten which is also on the record i would just like to mention briefly this is the stipulation of the parties executed by shirley butler in one nine hundred seventy four that was the document that that mr athens refute referred to at the conclusion of his remarks and then they state that the parties will cooperate in an effort to assure approval by the secretary of the interior of this settlement an execution of all documents and in our opinion the secretary of the interior through the girl than affairs did approve the settlement because he dispersed the check for twenty five thousand dollars to mr butler if he had any concerns about any document inside of a package that he didn't approve of it would have been unlawful under the settlement for him there would have been a breach of the settlement to go ahead and pay the money tally has been settled with the final paragraph of  that the secretary was expected to implement the settlement in accordance with the stipulation was entered into that dismissed the administrative court litigation and that he did so the final document i just want to refer to briefly is the document number nine in the settlement discussions themselves and their further consult with and have been advised by the bureau of indian affairs and that this release in the making of the settlement of which this release is a park have been agreed to by counsel and such bureau so it's our opinion that charlie butler five settlements she entered into the question is what she thought the settlement was and what the seven one actually says we believe is something different from alyeska has interpreted it assessed the second point i want to make as we've talked about the renewal of the taffs agreement under section seven of that agreement and i want to point out that under that renewable and pursu to it the federal parties to that agreement were compensated and are being compensated for the additional thirty year renewable under the district court decision charlie butler received nothing despite the fact that they maintained that the right of way was renewed under the exact exact same provision that the right of waivers review for the federal government  in accordance with that act and but that act adopts specifically the mineral the scene act and the agreement for renewal specifically rather preferences renewable under the mineral leeson act both come to a reasonable solution i have just a few seconds to the final point i want to make it is that if if exist in the v i i a grant is given meaning  that actually resolves all the problems and that's basically what it comes down to is allowing that to have some meaning and effect the other point is is that there are in summary judgment motion we want to point out this court's loose clear decision which says documents affecting native americans and their rights must be carefully to liberally in favor of the native americans and