that pretty well settled by nine hundred seventy nine when the court of federal claims affirmed the finding of the indian claims commission i don't believe so your honor for this reason i think never have there been a of what was going on in the mind of the tribe or the nation at that time one of the most important parts of president just lost the battle of beaver creek they weren't in the very good position time for everyone involved here and what was in their mind at that time i mean those who have it the is the eastern part of nevada which today i would say is still claims affirmation the dan case a little later that extinguishes all lingering rights but did it let's well that's the question then he's talked about individual payment with those people at that time the two most banned at that time before the i c c was very plain given up where is the representation where was the right to counsel where was the fairness finality where that final report said yes we will do everything we did all we could we tried but they had tried in seventy four to intervene and they had been it had been found that their rights were sold in to the rights of the shoney's which later netted twenty six million dollars for the in the end in claims commission and is now being disbursed riders about to be disbursed was completely unfair that we have sacrificed fairness for finality we all get that final decision we want to learn the lesson that the decision congress trespass charges against the dan sisters they tried to intervene in nineteen seventy five they previously reacted by saying wait a minute we thought this was just about money you're literally and all of those times was that discussion canary was a different kind of i was just confused by some of the briefing in terms of your reliance on your dealing with treaty title as opposed of claims and play both center lingo and we didn't they didn't that court say there that you have to bring it within a reasonable time or is it safe and that would certainly if we followed that decision we can on that issue that would seem to then rule of the court of claims which is the equivalent sixty that you know and that would seem to bar then i realize there are cases in other circuits which go a different way the we're bound by that decision but i mean you want to our u s has to recommend that that issue be taken in bank to be overruled in this particular situation it would certainly be reasonable because of th disposition i realize you claim an independent action also the price and i am focused on the independent action because an independent action and that reasonable time i think still requires this court to look at what the tribe or what the indians were thinking twenty years what was the rush you know what was the rush of them realizing finally when black helicopters show up from the government to say you can no longer use this language you always used it in one thousand nine hundred two thousand they now know that the right of the land was the issue they are have actual notice and they find would you like to give some time to mr herman yes thank you thank you may please report on like reserve two minutes for rebuttal two issues i'd like to deal with very briefly let me start with the sixty four issue i don't think this court has to take it on bank and to reverse the public case the good case they are dealing with attempts by the plaintiffs to get out of stipulations they filed them as motions under some under one fifty two b saying that there was some sort of fraud and that they didn't well i would agree with your your think post approach are avoiding a time or issue is if you can make it why independent action plan now worked on i think we won sixty four allows us to file a motion alleging that the judgment itself is the the the i c c opinion as to whether or not truly tired was consider if you consider this case like a chain link and you begin the first chain of opinions in this case is the is the claims commission  doesn't convey recognised time and respectfully has won for several reasons because the treaty that is at issue in the northwest is surely a case is the box elder treated the box elder pretty significantly different than the will be valid but in any event they were not in terms of the new treaty would be valid of course that would be an incredible violation due process to bind the western shoney's in the north west as shown any case were not parties and their treaty was it was not it is to the aboriginal title which is a right of the original title everything they once had they no longer have now why do isn't that extend anything that would have happened at ruby valley which as we both know was not very favorable to the tribes at all well because the entire if you were i think corporate points out common sense tells us that that title would be a greater title then some kind of raid by a treaty but under our laws it's not million for the land and everything in it the assets the the mining rights everything what not interest and that's that's a big difference because then that judgment then goes into a fund which has accrued interest to this if there is recognized treaty title the equation is different and the law says that's equivalent to a fifth minute taking in our constitution the united states they're owed interest from a conservative that's a fourteen billion dollar difference so the interest is western shawnees responsible for safety and their own way that makes them essentially police internally policing their own state and it says that the western shoney's have to guarantee safety and the language says that united states for punishment and that they are given to the safety of the white man that similar language that was in the fort laramie treaty in the property case that the court said that that is the significant language that indicates that there is recognize ownership of land if  hegde four additional minutes we went over to pluses to that will even things up  has the treaty of ruby value never been properly disposed of by all of these various rulings that the indian claims commission the court of claims the supreme court and everyone else has dealt with it i believe it has court ok talks about this language doesn't change the analysis with respect to whether these treaties extinguished it's it is these are good of the the interest question right in the end wouldn't we still have the enormous difficulty of getting past the sovereign immunity waiver herman was making about the treaty tie or fee type those are the claims that are associated with that quiet title action which was separated out of this case and sent to the district of no five to if if mr hurd is correct that the western surely still having ties to some lands then there hasn't been any take but that's the question that's just if they had just become requested accounting freestanding on obligations would that go to the court of federal claims or do that they would have to identify some attempt when in fact potentially can they identify a potential liability and on that basis requested an accounting or does it have to be an established challenge a void action does not is not subject to any time limits is that what's happening here they challenging his voice say some subject matter so to alter or get out of the stipulation and i looked at the decision it talks in terms of sixty he doesn't focus in specifically on sixty before i think well i take your word for that i was trying to which includes many things in this we as we like to the complaint there are several things that went on in the in the proceeding that makes it four approach beginning with the fact that the western shore the nation is made up judgment is boy the judgment it's open what you said you were making an argument that would seem to me to say the judge was not boyd but it shouldn't be applied to us look at the beginning with with the with the who the parties then the parties or work they're fired or whatever and argued if in a position that they are their land was never lost incredibly the court with the government said you cannot change your position in the proceeding nowhere else in jurisprudence can a party be refused dismissal of their own claim when the when the when the the parties are worried about the league asian found out that the position being taken on their behalf was that they have lost their only and they disagreed said no that's not our position they tried to fire their lawyers they pulled the awards that's not a position the government was aware that that was the position to be aig was aware that her position and the courts that were not elected would dr this case your stock in the case that is a violation of due process plaintiffs have the right to to control their own litigation on and there were other things that we led to the complaint that tantamount to a violation of due process  now we haven't had a chance to make those arguments because we're dismissed the case was dismissed we're saying we have alleged a complaint that at least go to the next stage and these are very valid questions that i'm sure we'll be asked and we will answer those questions why the term and i have to keep the time pretty even so if real consideration by a court of fundamental issues to the case what does it say what really happened before the claims commission you have this chain link fence or this link that that had little bits and pieces and here we are in two thousand so and where we can even refer back to a case and say this is what was found by the court there are always been dismissed for tactical reasons deniers and motions intervene where the consideration for consideration would never be it was never considered we believe that we to lead the appropriate legal foundations to go to the next step in this case not be dismissed and we should have the next step which is getting into these issues of the case thank you thank you mister