attempting to enforce important federal rights are often deprived of access to a federal forum to vindicate those rights because they are unable to obtain review from repeated remands but now that we're properly before this court to contest a sanctions order lockheed martin asked this court to reject plaintiff's position and hold two things one that military contractors it's a rare opportunity have review of a very important question these cases come up over and over and over again and we have a military contractor defense that is rock solid here is one that was actually conceded in the court below by my opponent and honor we're not asking to reverse the district court doesn't have jurisdiction anymore and so the case is properly had been is remanded and it's not jurisdictional but this court has jurisdiction to consider the sanctions order and considering the sanctions or the court  section fourteen forty six section fourteen forty six says that you have if it wasn't otherwise removable then you have an extra thirty days but if you look at the successive removal cases your honor kirkbride s those cases are all cited in our briefs and in those cases those cases are indistinguishable from this case except for one fact and that one that one fact is that they actually brought and were refused  well we don't think that there was an opportunity to remove your eye we think we think actually we think the harris case is very helpful to us on this point because the harris cases you don't have to remove if you'll be in violation of rule eleven if you try to and i think that that that's what we agreement of the parties if you have the twenty sixth or so defendants in that case and as indicated by the record the only evidence on the record here is that these defendants have a policy of not joining in  this given the important federal interest in fourteen forty two that they ever intended for this that anything that's remotely removable even possibly removable to in fact be enough to essentially defeat the right to the independent ri on these facts as being not removal under section fourteen forty two and that the independent room ability under fourteen forty one is irrelevant and it's particularly relevant here because it would not have been successful right would trigger another thirty day kwok ok under under the successive rule but the court this court doesn't have to reach that question as those are both under fourteen forty one and i think that fourteen forty two is a separate independent from four hundred forty one and it was intended to be separate independent and the separate right of a federal officer carries with it a completely different standard federal issues that are that are at stake there and i think that the the rules are that fourteen forty one should be narrowly construed so that may case may come out shorten our time by by by delaying the notice by ten days ok and give us only twenty days that's one the second is that the gamesmanship goes on because at the same time and this is that was by the record at the same time went out and worked harder to gather all of our evidence in order to be able to remove in good faith and rule eleven within twenty days instead of thirty days but there was no reason to think that we didn't have thirty days given their prior position so to button it but the important thing here your hon largest sense is no less than trying to avert a nuclear holocaust and they're having to balance off should we put asbestos in the skin of that plane so they can fly at mach three point three or not and that's a federal decision and when they instructed lockheed martin to carry out that parallel circumstance here with the reading by the removing party bankers of the complaint be done through the eyes of bankers so that they know what citizenship they have what harris says is you don't have to go dig back through records and find out that a broker is a citizen of a diverse state or not but it doesn't address what if banker's wasn't alleged to be a sued for product liability for failure to warn on a federal enclave while you're doing work there as a government contractor that's been the complaint you would have to be not reading it correctly  fairly to conclude otherwise in fact your honor an interesting question raised is if the plaintiff's joe knows that it could raise federal long play jurisdiction to the point that they disclaim it expressed in the complaint question is are you arguing that all they knew was that it was federal court and their problem was they couldn't get twenty or thirty other people go along with them is is very linear and very straightforward which one the first one the more novel issue and it's addressed in the district court's opinion is there some other new second thirty day that attendance here because we know there can be a second thirty day and our point is that even in that period they were on notice from the original pleading and that's what that's your first point that  single word on the issues that i think is a significant issue in the case because you're stuck on this one fact which you can't get past if you don't want to that's fine and you w investigate so there's a narrow ground that this court could decide the case on that in fact the federal law enclave was not disclosed in the complaint itself you have to go beyond here us and say that they have to say that it's a federal  for in order to say that it was not removable in the first instance on their theory of the case i would ask them to go beyond that very narrow holding because we get here so rarely and in fact deal with the very issue that the be that even if you knew that it was a federal law enclave that you still have a separate clock under fourteen forty two because the decision of whether to move out of federal enclave is a completely different decision than it is this new move is a federal officer if you don't know you're being sued as a federal off might just choose to stay in state court because all that happens is that you decide to apply federal law is that a state law under the federal law enclave it and they may be the same and so maybe no reason at all to remove but when you find out you're being sued as a federal officer now you have these very important issues and to defend and the decision would be different so we think should we separate