to get right into that what is the general line what's the principle we're dealing with this supposed to applying it in this case the principle is one of statutory construction and i believe that it was a nun she did it very well by justice thomas in the sense of the role and somewhat difficult questions to answer because right now we are we are actually addressing the factual engine c analysis of acting on behalf of and we're we're addressing the issue that judge judge will never allow  jandal brothers to get to and that will stop short because of this matter of why issue that we don't even get to consider whether or not an artificial entity i e boeing or anyone else contracting with the government was acting on behalf of the he activities are controlled by the government whether or not the result control in terms of the agency and they fall within the employee of the government definition the separation is whether or not  company which is the contractor assumes all risks and is liable and saves the government harmless on account of damages and cetera et cetera that seems to me to be directly emphatically to the united states government's but none of this was brought up before the district court and none of this says we've had an evidentiary hearing we haven't broached any of these issues again to day on appeal was the strict legal issue of whether or not as a matter of law an artificial person can be theories i my recollection doesn't tell me right now what they're there they're not your honor i don't believe that this time in terms of the petition for certification that it calls for from leading such allegations the allegations were to show that they were in fact an employee of the government and that they were acting within the scorsese film of their employment but my point being in response to the question that again those are those type of issues and i see where are you honest going but they haven't been raised we that when you look at that report claims that the courts were worried about government employees however you define them from catastrophic risk and we're going to protect them because we know the corporations are really have a limited right and billing situation legally but further if the united states says to this contractor look you basically wait any of your claim against us that seems to me to be consistent with reading a foreign government contract in concert with statute which wouldn't protect a corporate  entity and it seems that they are logically consistent so that even if we don't rest it on the contract that the contracts one more piece of evidence that there's not an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity so i mean specific question is because the waiver has to be so specific it seems to me to come to your conclusion we have to jump through a lot of connections and hoops which doesn't seem all that right now and that's what we're considering here is where they should or should not have done that don't know anything to do with what the complaint is one of the individuals against the government that's correct and that the government's the in the contract i mean that that may be an issue for discussion in terms of form over substance are there any defenses to that do we need to get into very actually this statement really just out there just to clarify maybe you can help me they say you're a contractor or d that has been also asked the government about that ok thank you and i really really i appreciate the questions but as a matter of law because i believe this is an important issue to decide the they're arguing that the twenty six seventy nine only deals with the scope of employment it was a reaction to the was full the urban kids which limited to those acts of an employee acting doing performing a discretionary function twenty six seventy nine is amended sets any employee quote any employee acting within the scope of the government it consistently uses the word employee and to your honor just as b s or a believe it it's question in terms of i think it's important here to draw arrows government is liable for the negligence of an employee of the government the definition of employee of the government is found in the federal tort claims act twenty six seventy one that defines persons acting on behalf of government persons then according choose me just as these are your question in terms of we must follow the supreme court on all of the law that's before us those laws are all quite clear that there is a presumption that we follow  of congress surrounding the word issue or the text of other related congressional acts the wording issue here is persons persons does not show up in the federal tort claims act thirteen forty six b instead of an employee of the government shows up and twenty contract there's some kind of employees if you're going to if you're going to argue that there's a relationship between the helicopter and the government i think it that that relationship is founded in a written in terms of trouble with that i may be you've got an explanation that made sense but i just want to alert you in your argument it's fairly clear your father and again these these are difficult questions of the factual analysis because the facts were never raised before the district court we've never had this and i understand things have no standing because you don't have a contract for you know your honor like i'm not positing that and i wouldn't agree with that assuming that you have a relationship because  will provide evidence that it never interfering which is provided under the federal for claims act in these situations for whether or not the employee was acting on behalf of the government in terms of showing the control by the government the day to day activities of the government hi it was their helicopter but they provided the alst they told them how most how much else to apply to the land it told them when to fly they told them where to fly very controlled when they would stop flying if the wind was picking up and they told them we have instances if it was raining or that is under this rationale as the findings indicate in the westfall act that is also the purpose of the truthful purpose the second purpose is to protect persons injured by employees of the government certainly includes the dictionary actually meaning in this case we have farmer groups corporations limited liability companies partnerships those are all persons doing the government and so in terms of the consistency argument the application of when you assume once of persons it must also richard that there was nothing in any contract which ever referred to them as employee of the united states and in fact we pointed out the provisions in the thomas helicopter contract which they put in their petitions are asian so there are no th and it's now it's not the federal reserve bank but it's something else so then that when a sense section of the statute would read persons acting on behalf of this corporation corporation a so just thinking it wouldn't really make sense to interpret that to mean instead a person in corporation acting on behalf of the corporation it would seem to be that would be inconsistent and i'm wondering if that is that an easier resolution to this problem then all this sort of and bringing i'm not sure it's a question of handwringing your honor i think what we have is if i famous to your question correctly and i'm not certain i did i mean  be a little clearer since you could have a corporation there would be a federal agency whom so then you would have under this you can have a person acting on behalf of the corporation background tells us what congress was speaking in terms of natural persons only and here we're talking about what he's getting in stature the congress passed at in the finals the congress said government contractor defense they can certainly raised it and that is just another example of the of the protections that contractors artificial and these do have when they when they contract with the government are and they are suited for they other question so thank you thank you very much your honor the first like to point out someone of the misrepresentation by the government and the little kids they've represented in the brief and then you raise it again in oral argument as if it was the holding of the supreme court and lo and i refer the course attention to forty four  unity for a libel action but they did not raise that defense and they came they have the opportunity and of the court then went through the specific analysis and found that a yes that's was acting on behalf of the government and was an employee of the government under the definition of twenty six