court misconstrued the stipulated judgment specifically the language referring to the one nine hundred eighty nine protests the court also violated federal law on holding up the enrollment committee did not have a right to have to appeal to the i a s determination ruling the ten individuals and third that the district court violated the provisions of rule nineteen in failing after determining of the try was the necessary party and cannot be joined considering the issues first the nine hundred eighty nine protests it was not the intent of the federal government and my clients in entering into the stipulation to violate either the tribes constitution or  language in the stipulation refers to was the final determination by the enrollment committee that these individuals did not meet the one eighth blood quantum requirement necessary to be members of the tri so it was the intent of the parties to roll back the clock to basically vacate the decisions of the two assistant secretaries the two conflicting decisions of the of the assistant secretaries reinstate the roman committee's decision and give the persons that were affected a right to appeal that's consistent with the enrollment ordinance the district court unfortunately this construe that language and thought that what the parties to the stipulation intended was to give the enrollment committee a right of appeal and therefore the district court thought that what the parties were trying to do was confer under the federal defendant's authority that they didn't have and of the enrollment ordinance that is the authority to make the decision in the first instance rather than the roman committee that was not the intent of the parties and if the district court simply held a hearing or let the parties know that the district court was interpret in the judgment that way we could have clarified that for the district court but even if you assume for argument's sake that the district court was correct that the interpret in the judgment is giving the aroma committee the right to appeal the committee has that right under federal law and the district court committed an error of law in determining otherwise what the district court did was it looked at hart sixty two which clearly gives an enrollment committee the right to appeal from a decision of the bureau of indian n six point eleven what it says is the part sixty two will not apply in those in rome and determinations where the tribal role is prepared and maintained by the tribe and the district court said well there was an initial decision by the enrollment committee to enroll these ten individuals that decision was sustained or upheld by the bureau of indian affairs elected a roman committee comes in and it says wait a second there was an error these people were were not properly unrolled and made a determination carcassonne made a determination in the june twenty sixth one thousand nine hundred that these people didn't meet the criteria the bureau of indian affairs treated that determination as an appeal from the bureau of indian affairs determination to enroll those individuals that's that's what the did but it's our position that there was no appeal but there was a final determination and that all the bureau of indian affairs did was give notice to the appellate sustaining that decision and knows those applicants who were a federal court gets into it because the bureau of indian affairs the secretary of the interior pursuant to the authority granted to the secretary under twenty five years the sections two and nine appeared the initial rule for the trial and  active regulations twenty five c f r parts of the fore those regulations were then incorporated into the tribes in roman ordinance and the tribe adopted a constitution that specifically gave an applicant who was denied membership in the tribe the right to appeal to federal officials not to a tribal court but to federal officials part of the four north it's also the tribes constitution and the tribes that specifically gives an applicant a right to appeal then the secretary turns around and problem gates regulations part sixty one part sixty two and part two all in part and twenty five the code of federal regulations governing his own regulations and under the constitution and under the enrollment organs he then says i'm not going to do anything and i'm going to order the b i am to cease and desist and not do anything which they're obligated to do under the tribes constitution in rome an ordinance that still doesn't get the federal courts into it it's like a delegation of authority and sovereign responsibility to the bureau of indian affairs but how does that get the court still that the courts and because we have the right under the was we're not going to retain that right to oldham and we decide who meets our eligibility criteria we're going to give that right to the united states government we're going to give that right to the secretary of the interior  the have certain procedural safeguards in place it wanted it actually wanted to prevent what's happening in this case it wanted to make sure that there was an independent neutral body who ultimately made the determination as to whether or not the initial decision made by the enrollment committee was correct whether the initial decision by the roman committee complied with the constitution in a roman organs and the person that the tribe vested with people the right to appeal to the federal officials yes but it does not then create say that that is if you're unhappy with the federal official you can sue in federal court you're saying well after under the a p a because they think they but if we can't if we can't review if either the tribe or the aroma committee of the applicant can't speak review at the secretary's decision then then what happens with the secretary clearly makes an error where is the re once the in rome a committee makes a decision an applicant under tribal law in our position has or the enrollment committee under federal law has a right to appeal that decision to first regulations governing how that appeal process will be ultimate decision they get to attack the whole thing in the federal court well they that it doesn't say that in the constitution or in roman orders but but but by its very nature if if a federal official is taking because their interest is only to ensure that their tribal law and constitution is being followed and that's exactly why we brought the lawsuit because the federal officials not the tribe the federal officials were violating the tribes in ro s i think it's what i will first address is the threshold issue here of standing and i think it's important first to i'm going to focus on one factor of standing one of three not being causation and perhaps it's important first to acknowledge here what it is that we understand the government understands the r v so appellants to be challenging and that is the decision of the department of the interior that was rendered on january third of two thousand and one that's found at the excerpts of record page one  had been had determined considering the little descendants of mr clack and therefore perhaps what a mystery to proceedings were affected by this ultimate decision that was rendered on two thousand and one i'll just run down the pages of the press the court can look later but those are found the page is ninety ninety one ninety four ninety six one zero one two eleven and one for the sequence i've just given you represents the chronological sequence of events well we start with some page ninety the first was the delay of several years but indicate that it was still the responsibility of the department to follow through with the directive that followed from that decision indicating that these folks were not eligible and that was to correct the blood degree of the individuals who were enrolled in the tribe and who were descendants of kalac so because a decision had been had been rendered concerning their blood degree requirement their being the the department was saying we now have to look at those enrolled members to stacey's been affected by this determination twenty four days later it's shown on the excerpts the record page ninety four interior wrote to mr currier in his personal capacity  a tribal member he's now the chairman of the band but this letter was written to him in his personal capacity indicated earlier talking about causation but i have no idea where you're going so what i'm trying to establish is the sequence of events that had happened and which will were not eligible for membership and the those lineal descendant who were affected by that decision filed an appeal with the interior department they filed the appeal in may of two thousand and that's page down page ninety six and the government doesn't know what's going on and the appellant have has have claims that their injuries are are several and perhaps one of which is related to concern to casinos but the point i'm trying to make is this court needs to determine what it was in the two thousand  if they have particular reservation i'm but i'm simply trying to explain to the court that we feel that the factor of causation has not been established we don't know what it is that was found in the two thousand and one letter that caused the injuries that these  members against the federal government they didn't join the tribe who was the district court properly found indispensable party and i think the district court for not meeting the tried in the parking lot i think it's sixty under what i call a constitution it's the document it's called it's articles it was association that's the governing document the internal governing document of the tribe and  there are in the reservation but it consists of trust land and it's also has a lot of lands and free land checkerboard within its original boundaries  non tribal members there are there are there are non indians that live within the boundaries of the reservation that this is one of the reservations that was a lot  but the question here really useful is whether this court the initial question that the court should dress is whether it has jurisdiction i think it's clear that the court does not have jurisdiction this case presents a dispute over  technical assistance to the enrollment committee when they initially decide whether an applicant should be enrolled or not and to hearing appeals by persons that are either denied or deprived of membership by the enrollment committee for one thing this case wasn't presented that way we don't have plaintiffs in this case who were to deny it are deprived of membership by the enrollment committee and that's what that's screwed this whole case up from the very beginning secondly the fact that the b i can hear appeals under tribal law does not confer jurisdiction on this court they're just  yes it is but getting back to the issue of jurisdiction which i think is an important issue here because we have a whole lot of cases in common it was santa clara that says that the tribes right to determine defin membership is an exclusive an important part of its internal sovereignty one of which federal courts will not involve themselves in that's what this case is all about the fact that the  indispensable party and that was the ground that this was the case on the only other point that i want to make is is that under tribal law when an appeal is properly perfected to a federal official the ultimate federal officials decision again under tribal law is quote final inconclusive and so tribal on this case itself precludes any further review it gives the secretary of the interior final decision making membership that are being considered members of the tribe they're running for office they're voting in tribal elections they're receiving per capita payments from the casino and the person security in tribal programs to that extent they're diminishing my client vote my client's economic interest in receiving their fair share of the per capita distribution and my client's rights to you know fairly equally participate with other members of the tribe in tribal programs were directly affected position that it is a product of both tribal and federal law because again the tribal ordinance incorporated the federal regulations the secretary promulgated regulations to govern how his appeals through you quire by tribal law are processed and and therefore the secretary fails to comply with the federal regulations and process in the appeal and fails to comply with the tribal in roman ordinance that he specifically approved and  well just quickly the one point i want to make is the court violated rule nineteen as you know once the court makes a determination of the parties necessary in the fact that the tribes necessary cannot be joined because of  was to go through a balancing test one of the factors the second factor is that the court is supposed to see if the judgment could be shaped or modified to remove the prejudiced of the tribe but still afford relief to parties to the lawsuit the court just assumed that the my clients in the federal government wanted to violate the enrollment ordinance by conferring onto the federal official authority that they d official didn't have a movie in roman ordinance which was to meet the initial determination as to whether these individuals were eligible for a role meant the judge never asked the parties who negotiated the stipulation what their intent was when they used the phrase you