court thirty years ago the government offered i think farmers an opportunity to create an operate a promotion program for their benefit according to certain rules that the government would follow if producers agreed to fund it the rules were published as part of court order and a referendum was held producers agreed to accept producers approved it they agreed to accept the burden of hundred to a political organization the farmer has two injuries injury one didn't get what he paid in gets thousand dollars worth of promotional act you get seven hundred dollars regardless of what the other three hundred dollars worth of ads would have returned to him he still is injured because he is it your series that every time a producer who's who's paid he disagrees with the way the board spends money that that creates  broad discretion under the under the a p a congress to set out with three categories of activity promotion research consumer information and set standards of basically discretionary spending it has to be a factor it has to be thousand about the way the board spends the money for those activities sure you know that there's no doubt that there can be and so what we've argued to the court anything of briefing is we're not can contest an unwise decision what we're saying is if the court spends five thousand dollars on a car any why doesn't everyone have standing to say that the way you're spending my money is in the fact of the statute uses the term in fact if somebody says that i did not i'd be dead loser on the merits but in terms of standing what i would call sixty nine thousand producers have standing briefly even internally what you would use to prove that this is as i gather it you're alleging this this is was already purchased by the producers with douceur is money that's right and then sort of double before i had licensing house and helping yourself until price goes up the quick with a big issue is whether or not the the circumstances surrounding this this deal we are the type that will be seen in an arm's length transaction and you don't have that and you don't have this licensing price that goes from one dollar to eight hundred thousand dollars that's more than twice as much that the board's economist said they should be paying for the market without any explanation of why they're doing it and the essentially a worthless mark at this point and then you turn away our rights but yet they're not getting that they're taking their money and you're not you're not giving them anything and you haven't even after it's been replaced you're paying the exact same as when you claimed it was for a feature role and you don't pay the ex pres in the movie the same as you pay the leading actors so the question is what's going on here they haven't even addressed the fact that this is this market went from their featured mark to replace them back up but they're still paying full price every year even though they can get out for something that was paid for initially by the producers and i am i right about there is where is the allegation that this is concerned this is like on a mortgage we're continuing to pay we are we live in the house we're continuing to paint the initial price we've alleged that paragraph thirty three and eighty two the history of this that from day one every promotional dollar that was used to build value into profit other white meat was taken from producer check off balance they charge they took five hundred but that five hundred million dollars of producers money to build value into the funds and then tried to sell that back to him based on the value and without giving any accounting for two basic forms of relief which is a modification of the order or an exemption so the first thing if someone believes that the actual order itself or a provision of the order is unlawful they can see modification and that would be i would call it a facial challenge to the order but if somebody feels that they're that they are unfairly or wrongly being included on the order they can challenge and seek an exemption those are the only two those three only two options available for court act review for whether or not and established rule has it has been violated that's not the type of relief why because the government's argument is that modification of the order allows that type of relief that one modification of the order would be that there will no longer be expenditures in the in the way you're challenging them well the order is codified already in rebuke regulation knows it's a part a are there actually is seven c f r the government is saying that well we can alter obligations but i'm not sure what all of our obligations need to be altered we don't need a word of it of the court order to be changed or modified or not complying with your saying these are the rules we need somebody to stop breaking them so would be a little odd i mean basically what they're saying is you could add in there some sort of like you've got here you're regime of rules and you can act in there and by the way as these rules are being applied these bad things have happened don't do them any more  y feels a little like the wrong and by the way please stop making the route with that word we're ok with the current order we think the current worker prohibits us if we need if we thought that we needed to be out of the current order we could seek an exemption but for the producers position is as long as we're paying in and you promised us this promotional program that and you promised it would be effective and that it wouldn't be diverted to political uses we expect at least we're going to get back whatever the return of we expect c for the purpose of lobbying for the fence is that something you have to pay to support this matter to your allegations or is it simply that it's being done in a way that sort of pilots in fact a fiduciary duty that that that th just it's for the purposes written into the statute and you retract the language and i believe that the interpretation of the way the statute is written that assessments may not be used in any manner for the purpose of an influence in legislation so mean that that means that the prohibition attaches to the phones so if this was and basically it means that if there's not a real deal you can't get around that prohibition by giving i can interest ending and anyone who did any any one of those injuries would be sufficient to find standing for the entire case because any one of them would address all of the issues and all the relief so even just at the point where to find ways to secure long term revenue stream now what's important about that is that to check our revenue stream was never in jeopardy the only the only organization that still needed a revenue stream was n p c s of the check off the court would have no reason to complaining now and again we're talking at the pleading stage the question is whether or not these circumstances can be plausibly interpreted as an effort to really find a way to get check facts that would be in type necessary to prove them i think the only other there are more that the aspects of the deal itself that are really troubling about trying the allegation you know really to to prevent cruelty to the the animals that are that are subject to this and that's something their members care about and that's that's that's true that is their purpose and so with respect to their claims of really in that case with there being any argument that there's an outstanding if you're really what it is you gave three million dollars away for nothing you know i think they may very well have standing ok so then they say well you gave over three million dollars for something that's not million to zero if they have standing for three mil engines zero the argument would be when you gave away three million dollars for something that was worth zero of course that we assume that money would have gone to some productive purpose for us now why allegation is you gave me three million for matter that we blew away three million dollars if you still made a benefit i think that's not our argument not the district's reasoning was was not that like where you got enough where you complaining about that's not what i'm saying what i'm saying is you got a lot after we did this business decision that you say w complaint is not sufficient here to show that kind of standing for that individual producer so just on the hypo just bear with me for a second on the hypo the three million for zero if all they say is you gave away three million dollars we got nothing in return and then there's a faction it's actually incontrovertibly true that in fact the program writ large in order to the benefit of the people who are funding so is a will of seventeen percent every year yes would you say that well you need to say more than to explain why the three million what purpose that three million would have gone to and how that would have gone to something more than seventeen i mean it's going to be about a complaint they said more i think our point here is that that's not the situation we have  briefing and that the case developed in the district court in kind of and i mean pieces do this but i think it wasn't clear to the government that they were making that they didn't just want an exemption of what they had paid in so that was kind of  at the agency would consider it on the merits so the one agency determination that we know about reached the office conclusion right in the middle daughter so the doubt matter  you would you would want there and so i think in that way it would be distinguishable from the case here where this court would have said well how does your process work so if this if you had the effort that you think that they should pursue alternatively then would mcdowell come up in the proceeding and would oppose an obstacle to the i'm assuming this court would have held that they need to do that so i think they would be found out this court said to do with you so you think we need to definitively resolve that they could get don't have a requirement that they exhaust that i think that's right and then you run the question of whether they really supposed to be bringing a suit if congress is still limited who gets relief under the fork in that way  reason that the agency has ever read ever actually given for purchasing this or devaluation was based on its value as a way to avoid having to buy a new one and said well if we don't use this we're going to have to go and buy a new one well then they bought a new one and so now our obligation is the only the only reach peace is that we have in the record is that the agencies saying we're buying a new one and we're paying this three million to avoid having to buy a new one if they're going to continue this at the very