despite the privilege you may have discerned that it is my client's position that he should not be here today and i should not be here today and  benefit corporation or defendant limited partnership is the ownership of the marriott hotel in april but my question is not so much what the business does as what the citizenship why is there citizenship alaska at least in the poorest circuit it fixes the responsibilities of the port based with the with the petition of the nature which i filed  the party seeking which has sought removal of the you can help me here we've got columbia has two partners right to limited court i mean yes so limited in the general part and they're both disclosed you're assuming that they're that they're your holders and most corporations are going to be some owners in those l l c is that correct well the l l c is actually owned by two by two corporations which is being the defendant in that case which which is the owner of extensive property in virginia cannot simply by saying that it's a texas corporation and it would the principal place of business in those cases involve individual owners and this case because of the roles of corporate owners or institutional owners it doesn't come under that general rule i think i think you have to apply the rule was s thirteenth two thousand and two that is the reason that we're here now he just didn't know that he actually performed the work that portion of the record has never been developed your honor and we're not accepting that he did this work that he in i send out monthly bills i don't know how many members of the panel have been in private practice but i'm sure that you can imagine what a client would say if i delayed sending out my own bills for three and a half years  and they likely wouldn't want to pay them either just for that fact and this case is the textbook example of why the stress limitations exist delays happen it's true but there has to be a limit there has to be a set of absolute outer boundaries of what is acceptable really in business practices there has to be an incentive a strong incentive for people to manage their business affairs in a reasonably prompt manner for the first there was the first sort of accounting standards i don't know what you call it in august of ninety ninety nine mr johnson so we can revisit the policy issues behind the statute of limitations but that's really a decision for the alaska legislature and the court had to go that it should take notice of the fact that the special invitation for alaska was in for contracts was recently reduced from sixty years to three years  the legislature believing that the three years was the more appropriate period of time and that yes there is that absolute limit and yes if somebody waits far too long then yes you get their work for free because they have they have waited too long and the policy behind this is it's twofold first off it recognizes that businesses need to move on from projects they need to close because they need to stop waiting for everything to be cleared up because it cost money and it costs  manager for the average marriott has moved on most if not all of the employees who work for were involved in this project have moved on the records are not centrally located anymore they would have to be reconstructed a great cost any demand for any specific amount no specific demand in other words what you have faced logs so there never was a demand i want ninety thousand dollars if i go through the record i can't find any demand during this record that's correct  to columbia sussex at the time the work was supposedly done and what mr wade was talking about here was with respect to the the agreements that were made for labor were what are known as wet rates for operating construction equipment which includes the operator and in some cases an oiler who keeps the equipment clean and clean and operating while construction removes those of the rest of the labor rates that the record reflects were actually agreed worked on this project and he testified that he personally negotiated all material terms and conditions for the ship creek project with mr johnson personally so there is at least a dispute as to that and there's certainly not manual labor for clearing out the ship creek of throwing up construction yard which is very different from having an oiler or somebody was operating a crane these are people who are walking around picking up loose pieces of construction equipment and tossing it into a truck doesn't alleged that he agreed upon rates for that service the other thing without any specified agreement with respect to what service was going to be provided and what rights that's not a contract that's never been a contract you have to have specificity perspex material terms of contract or  demonstrate a fact even in the johnson's own allegations that demonstrates this is his failure to take any reasonable and timely actions one to put columbia on notice of what he was claiming he was due to to mr johnson did not take the reasonable steps that the law requires him to take to put columbia on notice of what his claims are so that they can be disputed and to protect its own rights and to allow the courts to effectively administer justice now we're faced with a situation if court's decision is overturned or we're going to have to go back to the trial court and recreate seven years after the fact an entire state of factual circumstances without the benefit of having the people who actually worked on the project there do it that's extremely arrange any testimony from him at all so whether we can actually whether they're dead or not if we can arrange for them to be there they're not subject to alaska subpoena power they're not in the state of alaska and we don't know if they can be here or not and that's why the  the contract between the parties as it's described in mr johnson's affidavit the only testimony concerning the agreement is it is clear that the party do agreed that there would be no agreement that he made with mr mueller and there is no contrary evidence in the record  whatsoever and all the evidence i mean all this talk about did they really wanted to keep track of the project as it was going they mean no effort they made no effort there is not not a lick of evidence in the entire record that they ever objected to the lack of that periodic invoiced and it's not unique in the construction industry or in any other businesses not unique that to have an agreement would take forty five minutes before this was all right significance there is to know that in the existing record there is one line of harvest information whereas what we're suggesting is the record needed to be corrected to show two lines of harvest information there's not really any dispute about  planned to make a delivery in mid november they had actually made plans with potential processing around either but they could and so well yes the question was what what was the record look like if they had done  necessarily seem reasonable to your case my problem is and the government might as well hear my tentative thoughts on the matter right now i'm tempted to see this as the government having chosen the only definition for harvest you want although it's a perfectly plausible one i think the government may be free to adopt some slightly different definition of harmless i know but my problem is the one definition they chose i think a lot of able and you're right that i think that details but have to do with the land that has it doesn't have anything to do with the heart of the harvest elves are over here and what's interesting is that like i say you can change the state came into play and but but as far as who would qualify if you were to rule in our favor only the alaska trojan partnership would qualify for salaries i mean i wanted that the only party in this case manage the fisheries and apparently from what i can read i may be wrong on this but they do use the three landings as their recommendation apparently in their review and i may be wrong who came up with that use our expertise to give you to fish tickets based upon this complicated cancer treatment thing i think i'm having a hard time with that another words these folks went through this and apparently they're trying to do something relative conservations out of the ground craft and i understand where you're coming from but apparently we're going to make some sort of the terminations for this vote and this particular fish to get in spite of all the other words and apparently exactly consistent with both accounts and some talent except for the mechanics that have happened in the space system or they have the fish sticks and that sort of thing and except for the fact that on that given day you might have landed two of them or you might have deliber ram apply their rule their one fish ticket equals one document or harbor to what we believe is not only contrary to the plain meaning of the of the terms of the definition of document of harvest but is also inconsistent with the intent of the lp as that that's our are our point and i guess i was one way to try to drive that point home is to say it this way the council never had this rule before you know this is something again rahm came up with in that period of making at that time which could have encapsulated their will they didn't they just said oh here it is yours is with the way we're going to do it anyway i like to reserve the balance of my time seven that third ten fifty four and then the smart thing we provided an additional supplemental citation of authority to the court and to counsel and this is to the supreme court in a case called national cable telecommunications association versus brand x internet services decided june twenty seventh two thousand and five and the site t is two thousand and five west law fourteen ninety eight eight the issue in this case alaska trojan would have the issue in this case the whether it's interpretation of the regulations is it says that there is only one interpretation of the regulations and that is fish tickets which mill your land what what the regulations says or what the preamble explanation in the final rule at page thirty three of the excerpts of record final rule term document or harvest replaces legal landing throughout the final the new term more accurately describes the activity necessary for necessary for eligibility correct that is correct but what is necessary is that there be a documented harvest and this this regulation has defined documented harvest to mean a harvest recorded in compliance with federal or state law now for the crab fishery this is basically a state managed fishery so we look to state watch and see what is required and state law requires that the harv because it didn't it didn't do would really to determine the point of offloading what they wanted to know is where the fish was harvested well i'm not sure that's the only reason for the change the cause and language th species of ground to shore two different species of crab that were harvested even if they were harvested in the same federal indorsement area if there were two different  from a system where there was that they described a moratorium process to this system that was adopted and ninety eight called the limited license program which was in essence intended to put a cap a limit on the number of people fishing in the fishery number of both of the number of boats out there to now where they have just put in place a new regulatory scheme involving a fishery is different from an agency's interpretation of its own regulations the chevron deference standards are stricter when statutory interpretation is involved but here we're talking about regulatory interpretation and here the supreme court has recognized deference to an agency interpretation advocated in all kinds of circumstances we started in our brief the our case our case from the and the court said that interpretation was reasonable and therefore it's planning even if there are other reasonable interpretations of the regulations we also cited this in the polls first the seminal rock hayes and older case that testimony explains that what has been referred to in this record as the business rule was based upon an interpretation of the regulations there is the e mail the plainest i read the testimony about the business rule and so on that didn't tell me how they arrived at i just told me the business rule we put into the computer and we got the business rule from the e mail whether or not the one taken one harvest is an appropriate implementation of the council didn't i don't i don't think that the change the regulatory change that that you have asked about has the consequence that me that you are implementing precisely the previous rule rather than the other rule because you're not allowing in any evidence that this might be considered to harm so it's conclusive that landing is all you've got to talk about i don't think that mean it's intended to change that the plaintiffs are asking for ascribing to that regulatory change or that or that you are when that change was made the preamble language  in the final rule the preamble language says this is to more accurately reflect more accurately describe what information we're interested in what we want done to look at and that's basically  administrators stanch to washington headquarters contemporaneous with this final rules seeking approval for the final rule  of the few changes made most were editorial in addition to the editorial changes there was the change in definition from documented harvest was added to the final rule this term more accurately describes behavior necessary for eligibility would have been a requirement to have significant analysis in this decision document as to what the impact of that change was going to be were you know i'm not sure that it's a major change it's obviously a major change i they don't they didn't examine the fish take us they examine the information that was given to them by the state of alaska the state of alaska provided to move now to the state collects all this data and provides that to would translate that into what white federal indorsement area or engrossment areas where these fish hide and if it was fishing in more than one federal endorsement area from which you have to start your analysis and it says in order to obtain what here is a brown king crab endorsement for the aleutian islands area which is what they were seeking full in our brief read grief as the very last attachment adenoma very last attachment shall record each landing with a fish take it right that's what i understood and so the document when that when the federal  of conclusion that they drew from the records so they were dated certain data runs and they came up with projections about how many thousands would participate but it was based upon a record in which these were separate again the to make a determination then if you're in the record is incorrect you have to correct the record and then you will use it i mean as we've closed those language and regulations in our brief and what we're saying is that if you look through the record you see