listed on pages twenty two and twenty four of our blue brief counsel could you help me with the part of this that i find the biggest gap in my understanding the explanation of that the way between when he had the bible the family bible back in the united states and when he made his sixty b motion remind me how long it is and tell me what the sixty be justification would be unfortunately because of the the way the district court proceeded in this case mr collins did not file a rule sixty b motion he was not notified that his petition was being converted to rule sixty b motion until he actually received the court order dismissing his case yes your honor and he was deprived of the opportunity of receiving notice of any deficiencies in his admitted petition that it was even being converted to a rule sixty one more let me ask you about that so you're citing are relying on fourteen fifty one and i presume some fortune fifty one i and that one specifically references within the time that that the chain the certificate could be within the time prescribed and the rules of procedure statutes governing the jurisdiction of the court to take such action which refers to rule sixty among other things so i mean that was part of his basis for seeking a change in the know was the basis that you allege that there is no jurisdiction and the court recognized that the mr collins was a pro se litigant and there was a discussion back and forth on the record as to what the jurisdiction basis was at no time did mr collins petition alleging the basis for jurisdiction three days later four days later he did file an amended petition again he did this on his own as is clear from the record in the hearing with the court that he was not able to afford counsel and his basis that he cited to the court was the regulation which is three cases the that one of there was a mistake is what you're saying so so looking at your supplement though i can you respond to sixty and had an opportunity to present additional facts to the court such as the facts that we have in the motion to supplement that he would been able to demonstrate certain factors that courts look to determine whether there was reasonable innes in his delay and those factors include illness poverty loss of job loss of home taking care of family obligations and difficulty navigating the legal process and we have any  case though that basically would excuse this kind of a delay over a twenty year period doesn't have to be related to immigration but a sixty b type case we've cited several cases on page thirty two  thirty three of our brief and in those cases one of them at the junk osten case taking care of family and feeling overwhelmed by the legal procedures rendered eighteen delay reasonable and then there is another case we cited the care hairless case taking care of a sick wife rendered seventeen year delay reasonable oh wait let me let me just ask though if you turn it the other way around you know there can be delays that are reasonable but isn't in the views of the district court's discretion in effect to determine that this was too long ultimately however the district court decides this issue we believe that's fair but mr collins didn't have the opportunity to present the facts to be considered in the first instance what do we do about the supreme court cases like little jerk which says the at you can't use the six which is what your clients relying on as a work we the supreme court tells us we're supposed to look at it according to the one year and not not to sixty six we don't think the facts of this case fall within those other provisions why is that because it was newly discovered evidence was his claim and he has some equitable excuses sixty two assuming that he didn't find out till the family bible got on the table so to speak then he's in the sixty two situation right one and then some time there after he got possession of the bible record it's not clear exactly when he actually had possession of the bible well let's just take the funeral in a normal case  diligence and someone tells you look we looked in the bible or we found out at the funeral that actually your birth date is such and such when that put him on notice to take action then again i think and then you have the twenty year delay again i think your honor these are these are facts that could have been established at the district court level had he understood that rule sixty was his mechanism and that and in particular rule sixty six requires extraordinary circumstances and our point is that there just wasn't enough development of the record to make a determination for this process a litigant where there is clear case law that says that i mean brief three that that notice of any perceived deficiencies an opportunity to amend unless it's absolutely clear that the deficiencies could not be cured that is what a pro s should be afforded and in this case there was not a development of the record enough to determine whether or not it was absolutely clear that the deficiencies could not be cured and we submit to your court that there there was evidence that it could have been cured so you would like you would like a finding of jurisdiction but every man and because of the circumstances of the conversion of the sixty to be motion yes your honor i don't remember did any of the did i think there were two authorities you cited where they were very sixty b two situations where it was basically newly discovered evidence but the motion came more than a year after the judgment i believe the two cases that you're referring to your honor they were similarly situated in that the the individual had not deliberately committed a false hood when he filed his naturalization papers and that does seem to be a determinative factor in a lot of these cases whether the individual at the time that that he or she was naturalized understood the last question i know you're trying to save time but we're going to give you some time for rebuttal do you think the the impetus for your client doing this was to get social security benefits which i understand he now has received it can you confirm that your client still wants to pursue this issue yes your honor there are also other implications with having inconsistent birthdays for medical records and other aspects where you have to put down your birth date you know he has a view of what his birth date is and then he has naturalization papers that say something else and so for consistency finality and all of those important reasons to understand what your birth date is you should be putting on important documents that's why he's continuing this case does you still drive  i don't believe so your honor i haven't asked that per se but he is legally blind at this point so i think they have braylon a lot automatic teller machines you could have a driverless car well here from the government  police court next one tribe representing united states the court has hit on the on the head of the nail the issues before it now the questions are where would your restriction arise and if it exists at all which the government has posited that it has what must someone do to get a court to properly assert to probably accept the necessity of a change under rule sixty  as i understand it in a lot of other countries birth certificates don't play the same role they do in our country and as i recall there's a long section in wigmore on family bibles with more in evidence  just be his say so in an american court that he saw it in nigeria so we need to have possession of the family bible in order to present it and how long a delay was there between possession of the family that's again that's when he had possession as ok i understand that now why wouldn't the court be able to act if the equities were strong enough under sixty b six even though it could have acted within a year under sixty two well the issue gets to the negligence of mr collins in waiting that period of time and ignoring any obligation  if correcting his birthday was such an important task for him then it's clearly negligent since it most certainly well i don't know if it is or not i mean if it's only negligent if it looks like it matters and he has no reason to think it matters until he has the social security problem well you are as as counsel has posited there are other matters before an individual relating to  course but many of us never look at our passports so we start thinking of a trip to europe or something then we look at them and oh my gosh it's almost expired and we've got to renew our passports and and if you don't have some problem i don't see why you would posit that there's a dramatic difference between a passport that that citizen possesses and the document that permits one to operate as a citizen you think you know if you think if you think people look at their naturalization certificates it's as as counsel has already suggested there are times when it arises times like getting a driver's license times like filling out for medical benefits or or six because the judge converted it in a fact and then made a decision but without his ability to man the complaint and we only have a lot of cases say when you're in that situation unless it's absolutely futile which it would be hard to know since there were no real facts on the record why wouldn't it be appropriate least to give him an opportunity might come out the same way but he would have been able to tell us the facts that we're all kind of dancing around here that we don't actually have  judy and the question justice to reasonable is into negligence what that what the district judge had in front of it where the dish would have in front of it was the fact that for years decades if you want to go back to the to the time of the of the funeral yeah mr collins believed his birth date was a different birth date than the one that he had told the united states but if he had been in a mental institution during that time the would the judge have known that well there were that's because that's not what he argued i think the district court was trying to give him some benefit we had several discussions and i assure you i made several pleas with mr counsel try to at least seek some representation  indicated that from the government's perspective that the court would have the jurisdiction with respect to a court issued certificate of naturalization to make a modification or amendment did i hear just so so what is the source of the court's jurisdiction today with the it's continuing hold on its priorities your honor through the continuing hold jurisdiction what's the source of at well you want to once a court is your decision has been appealed what has been repealed is the court's authority to review its priorities if the new weight which is is found where in forty fifty one on which is repeal i guess i'm not understanding the argument i think i think what you're must be expressed in a statute and there isn't a statute that says well there was a statute that repealed this source of jurisdiction i guess an understanding if congress gives the court jurisdiction to hear a certain class of cases and then be isn't that adopted by congress as i recall although they adopt federal rules by silence and i think the committee files them with congress and of congress doesn't do anything and they become law and every now and then congress you're saying is that prior to the him the amendment is a going forward proposition prior to the amendment the order existed it existed legitimately from the court because of statute and when you take the existing court order which was not stripped and you add sixty sixty which gives courts authority to do certain things to its orders that the marrying of those two so sixty sixty doesn't give you jurisdiction but it gives you authority to do stripped away one could i think before you run out of time i've got one more thing on my mind here that's separate from this i can see where wrong birth dates i would give people equities or not depending on whether they had tried to defraud the ins or not and whether they had some good reason for the mistake or the delay or whatever i'm trying to figure out why doesn't the government want to have the correct date name and other information at one of the government's equities your honor if we get the equity certainly it gets down to the existence of evidence and the existence of the ability to get to the veracity of what's being put before it here where part is as far as that concern goes it seems to me that that's the one addressed by wigmore you certainly do not want to procedure that's likely to be unreliable but family bible so of long been accepted as reliable and as i understand it in a lot of third world countries people know their ancestry but not their birth date it's just custom in a lot of i don't know about nigeria where the family model is an exception to the hearsay it is not however in and of itself the end of the discussion and here where mr collins waited minimum of thirteen axonal of twenty years that's when he had equity any any evidence any to anything to look at this what might form the background of or the basis or the veracity of the day where you could inspect the family bible or if it has a publishing date that's later than the purported birth date it's obviously phony that sort of thing well that's that's that would be one way but if it's if it's an old bottle and it's got several dates in it there's no way to know who put the dates in order you know again it's an exception to hearsay it's not the end of the discussion on the berth is this something that the parties could resolve in mediation in other words does although you know the u s yes had refused the initial overture to change the birthday after he had all these medical issues does it have the authority to do so it does not it would have at best the ability to consent to a judgment before the court it is the court that has the ability to modify a previous court understand and so do the so in other words let me just kind of and i'm not asking for you to agree on anything but i'll just spin it out if the district court has jurisdiction because it is an existing order and if if the case were remanded for the district court to make a decision in light of that what you're saying is if the parties came to an agreement for a stipulated order they could present that to the district court for consideration it is my understanding that that is the case and your honor that's that's really the heart of this matter this is one case of several in which even were that not there however the government's position is that will sixty plus the existing jurisdiction at the time that the order was issued married together as you pointed out so it provides your bottom line right now but for us is that you've got jurisdiction but that that the district court despite the pro se status and despite having converted it himself to own rule sixty b that the decision was correct that there should be no modification entered in this instance where between a decade and a half and two decades went by before mr collins even thought to come forward to let and that the language of forward is clear that there is no jurisdiction with the court unless the petition for naturalization had been filed with the court before october one thousand nine hundred ninety one which is the case here remind me again of what the problem is with section fourteen fifty one there isn't a problem your honor that was the enabling statute that was in force at the time that the district court the power of the court gave the naturals a right to mr mr collins since that time the immigration act of one nine hundred ninety was in acted which then simultaneously repealed section fourteen fifty one in terms of giving corks the power to natural naturalized but in doing so the immigration act did notice and recognize that there could be exceptions to the retention of jurisdiction when you're dealing with orders of prior to nine one and then in terms of the rule six motion that has been discussed here this morning there is no bright line rule as to a number of years that constitutes a reasonable delay and the problem in this particular case is that the district court did not have facts before it to decide whether in fact this was a rule sixty two case or rule sixty six which we think is appropriate and we've had in the briefing from the government they've intimated that  sixty six is a possibility and that the court did not mention sixty six is that correct in a footnote it rattles through all of the wire minutes but it didn't say i looked at sixty six and i don't think it's issue and then the footnote said that there weren't any facts before him for him to entertain any of the other provisions and that was that was our position that there  i do want to thank this person for your problem no appearance on behalf of the court also to credit mr weintraub who said he tried to get mr collins to get counsel we might not be where we are today so i appreciate both the government's argument and also argument for mr collins thank you