again good morning your honor it's basically i'm here representing a former employee of the navy he had been hired basically is the maintenance person under condition how could someone have authority to enter into a contract that's contrary to the statute i think the exuma still stands and case that i'm representing a basically the exhibit good twenty one appendix twenty five and twenty nine are basically contracts that were submitted to my client is an offer of employment which guaranteed and his employment i don't think you're answering the question how could it be that somebody in the government has the authority to enter into a contract which is contrary to the statute it basically was an error in the government you takes point i think it is and what you haven't responded to that is why does that matter if the end of the day the statute provided for it because there's a line a k let me finish the statute provides for a two indicated some of their cases basically went in line with if there's a change in the s f fifty that there's a duty potentially to notify the person that there is going to be a change in their tenure and that was and several of the cases now they try to carve out the exuma case was showing different transfers with then not be covered by the exam case which i understand but in this case we ha situation where we've got an employee who becomes went from his perspective a one year ploy working for twenty months at no time during the twenty months does anybody tell him that is a fifty has been changes there's nothing in the record to indicate that and again there are fewer it can certainly look at the three of the government regards that is where they've actually you stated not saying it was negligence but they're saying it was appealing argument which is the government by the way didn't make that mistake some bureaucrat some paper pusher in the system filled it out in ignorance of the statu ok the problem is that while i'm attracted by your argument we have a line of cases go back to the i don't know how far back that say if a bureaucrat erroneous lee does something that's inconsistent with what congress has authorized the bureaucrats wrong and there's nothing we can do about that now there's a whole line of cases that say that the acceptance of our the situation where somebody comes in and says i want to change my status and the bureaucrat says oh ok no problem change or status will do it but the bureaucrat doesn't bother to tell the employee and by the way when you do that you're suddenly going to lose all your right that's that's a different case  we have here to this is this is the basic hard case of the employee who is poll one thing and that all is something and i agree with you in my view the harm should fall on the bureaucrat who ought to lose his our job but that issue is should the government be bad by the ignorance of its bureaucrats  we note that the government made me not be free of all circumstances to exclude the effects of their now it's been pointed out in the brief by the government did they did in there and they they referred to that many not good line when we're dealing with transfers what you have isn't that sort of a watershed type case you've got a situation where somebody is going to work vigorously work for twenty months and during those twenty months nobody brings it to their attention that oh by the way from your to your probationary point there's this expectation of comfort there's an expectation that i should be able to come to work knowing that i'm now longer a probationary employee did i can feel free to look that i'm going to be protected by my job that's the only thing to do issue here it's not the issue of transfer it's not the issue of i tried to apply for a different job like williams the difference is this is a straight law going back more than twenty years stating that government positions are a matter of appointment and not of contract or that there cannot be an implied contract and regarding what mr smith's said about there not being any notice to mr r that's outcome would be the same i simply want to address the contention that he didn't receive the notice when in fact it's clear that he did what about the present boy i come to you and i say sure this is only a one year probation because i'm about to quit my other good job and i think that's really important factor and i wouldn't quit my job and come here if this were to rather than a one year probationary period in there and say yes you have life insurance and i do all this stuff and i move my family and i sell my house and i take this job and i've made it clear that's my understanding same difference right your same difference it's obviously very unfortunate situation that's the situation that was covered under eczema some of those other cases that the court overruled last year in the williams case there is no how would i would say that exactly i mean i would say that while it unfortunate is not an uncommon occurrence this actually happens all the time not reassuring it's not reassuring but it's true in a lot of i don't know about but a lot of employees are members of unions unions can certainly provide information h r can provide information and mr r actually appears to have had previous government service and so he should have been well aware of the very idea that there might be a probationary period should not have the lexus that i've done that would fit this because everything is separate that all people who are working people who voluntarily were asking for transfers what i'm really asking this court is to remain on the case back so it can be determined that he is subject to one year conditions of probation and that's they should have allowed him to challenge if he did perform as janet let me just to say we're not going to look at what you did we would be bound by that but things change and that's what i'm asking this court and this to look at make it so it's equitable making it so that the m s p board does their job and would appreciate the