the court hearing on behalf of mr brown the nature of the order that was issued and the order in this case was a dismissal under stiction grounds that they filing of the application was not time and therefore whether there was or was not a response to the decision to dismiss was relied upon by the veterans court and interpretation of the ija statute that the filing was unkind which necessarily goes to the question of law as to whether or not judgment application was not filed within thirty days of the mandate was because the counsel representing below simply did not understand the law and the rules of the court below and therefore was not in a position to be able to present a response to the show cause or if the response to the show cause order is a predicate to consideration by this court then obviously this court doesn't have to consider the end of the arguments at all understand something as fundamental and basic as what it takes to who is foreign to an order of a show cause and then and my response to that is twofold one the nature of the proceeding that it is a veterans proceeding and second that it is ija proceeding and it's a proceeding under the aegis statute that is intended to be remedial the clear intent of congress in creating it ija was to compensate the appellant the if says that argument would have the court's time going include it to the arguments i i fully appreciate that and understood that at the time in which this was filed that that was a substantial risk because there was no response to the show well it has to do with the veterans right to those benefits now that the law is clear i personally think the law is in correct that this should be about the attorney and his the use but the law clearly sends the ija is the property of the veteran and so long as that's the law it seems to me that it is appropriate to bring to the court's attention when there was an error committed below no level those fees on remain and ok so let's say he loses there and then you appeal it to the second round and you prevail there than there if without would you not be able to go back and recover attorney's fees for the entire proceeding at that stage or would you be foreclosed from proceedings leading to the remailer as far as i'm i'm aware your honor i don't know of any case in which that has happened i have like the theory make i'm going to pursue it a case by local cleary and then the cleary case the court said once they relinquish jurisdiction that's the end of the matter and that closes the matter and there will not be recovery for each are under the equal access to justice act for the work performed on  the only benefit potentially would be the award passed to benefit it's which i believe in this case takes out the counsel that was represented at court the counsel represented a court is not representing  dispositive we've addressed that in our brief we would agree unless the court well if he distance that's not his position that's how he perceives what he perceives to be our position fair well then i will say we've addressed that in our brief in case that is not the  because these arguments therefore are not properly before the court and of course that because the court below was correct to dismiss based on failure to respond to an order to show cause we think the correct result here is to affirm