liriano off bell in custody but your interpretation of them is in error and i believe that the district court's interpretation of cases was completely in error the court just simply adopted defend its position below and jurors controlling the united states supreme court liriano off in one circuit precedent and we would have to overturn those cases to say that when the soldiers i'm sure you read the brief but the soldiers were given bonuses back in two thousand and six the got deployed and then the united states government said hey we want that money back you didn't earn it now and then belatedly the government kind of comes to its senses and more or less the right thing is contracts when you sign a bonus it is a crew the nd you sign it it is yours and it supreme court has held that they held it leon up and the distinction here is the district court was trying to say and defendants are the defense argument below was th hate this is regular paid controlled by statutory you know by congress and it it's set in the set level and congress controls it and they can take it and they can give it away they same thing if your pension same thing with medical benefits but a they signed hers too it was almost like at the furred bonus go off like twenty three years in the future and you know in two years you're going to get your bonus well what happened was congress passed the new bonus scenario and changed a few things around and then to d o d told the soldiers hey you're not going to get your bonus you're not getting that you're not entitle to that and some of the soldiers went forward in a they fought fought that and he said desist this is a property interest we have a right to this this is this is a taking essential because we contracted for is this not controlled necessarily bad statutory language now the u s supreme court held that they were in fact entitled to that moment did it when it was an it was in a crude benefit and when you look at the standard you know as i put forth in the brief this goes back to the very st attorney general of the united states department of justice where there was a soldier a major here it is name was he benefit once you receive the benefit it can never be recouped and as i pointed out here defendants before congress in a report both parties submit it there was a report for congress in this matter assuming for a moment  you're right what damages do used as you get my client didn't receive all his student loan payments it was in his contract and as i say you know as we're going back to larry and off they said and they said it was earned upon commitment and what we have here is when the difference between those cases was this guy signing bonuses to go off fifty six years in the future some guys two years and they start collecting their bunches and this these guys get their states government takes a korean out for taxes years later like hey we want the full twenty back to department treasury interconnecting on twenty eight percent interest and this happens all the time and the thing is if we go file the case that they cannot take accrued pay they can you can forfeit future pay but if you have some income if you so even if we're talking of soldiers pay which is controlled by statutory language you could say hey we're going to take this pay away from you down the road we're going to reduce it they could do it to the court if they want to reduce your salary absolutely controlled by congress but they cannot pick back anything you've earned they cannot take back anything you have earned and that's what they've been doing what is your client short  repayment he going to get a part of it there's there's a ton of soldiers that only got part of her student loans paid many people who actually got deployed when he got part of the bonus find out while they're deployed hey you're not getting the rest of your bonus so that it has happened  the that money's peg it at least forty three million it happened to thousands of people they did not get what they bargained for the government and going forward on my other issues even if there's a fraud claim we get to the last but you know the court acted like the kind of didn't have notice in this case but they do note that he appellant setpoint to says that they believe they have a property interest and they're in their contract so do court was able is asking for a precise citation to the complaint in regards to a particular defendant i would say that particularly it's not there but i do believe that i cited it in supporting documents which is a point that i want to make that even if you are not going to hold up particular point and can in our favor i see ice talk about supplemental pleadings hyperlinks all kinds of documents in this case ok now you're down to two minutes would you like to say that time i mean i'm going to just get one point and i will sit down here and thank you you know going forward hyperlinks are incredibly porton are part of regularly ever deeply tings and i don't i told the court hey i put this in here and hyperlinks in news articles i linked them to our reports and stuff like this in the court considered these pleadings ended it did not exclude him even though the defense tried to exclude these hyperlinks and without a particular order excluding  i believe this should be part of the playing spank you ok thank you you could lower that there's a switch there thank you all right that you had good morning may it please the court laura myron for the government defendant i'd like to begin with  and off which is the supreme court case on which plaintive has relied that case does not say that at the moment you sign a contract for an innocent phone as you are therefore entitled to it no matter what what it says is that in the in title meant to bonuses like regular pay is governed by statute and the court came to the conclusion in that case that congress in fact intended for soldiers who had signed in this meant contracts realism and contracts but not yet begun their term of reenlistment to be entitled to those bonuses and so in order to apply that case here you would need to conclude that congress somehow intended for soldiers who signed the enlistment bonuses at issue here like plaintive to be entitled to those bonuses and there's been no allegation of that kind what we have here instead a situation in which congress came in and said we do not think that you should be recouping these particular bonuses and you directed the secretary of defense to undergo a review process which has been completed in which the vast majority of affected identified soldiers received a full refund of the money that had been withheld and clear of the clearance of any debt that had been certified or assurance that no debt would be certified in the future and as i understand the  premised on an argument that the initial bonuses were granted in violation of wall yes your honor i don't think there's been any contention to the contrary from plaintiffs that the law at the time that the bonuses were offered were in fact the holders were in fact eligible for them and but in any case that he's a genocide no declaratory injunctive relief that he would be entitled to that would give him any process beyond what holding of the supreme court in bell and larry and costello the court said that especially invalid that an enlistment contract is not a regular sort of contract it's a contract that that changes the status of the individual and that even if you violate the contract that doesn't change your status as a member of the military and so you cannot bring the kind of breach of contract claim that the plaintiff is seeking to bring here instead your entitlement to pay and larry knocks the court said you entitlement to in listen and bonuses is governed by statute and what congress intended it to be do your entitlement at the time that you enlist or that you realist so soldier or marine when the government says we're giving you this bonus all of these other benefits because you're really listening and you're going to get it he should have known the government had no statutory authority to tell him that making the offer recruiting sergeant that the government has the authority to give me this is certainly right and if i could reassure you there been a number of things that the department of defense has put in place especially laid enlistment offer in good faith that they would be entitled to keep the money that had been paid and there's no reason to think that this is the kind of thing that's happening across the board as i said there's been a lot of in protections that have been put in place in order to prevent this kind of situation from occurring again in the future and there are regular processes in place in which soldiers may seek review of any effort by the military to recoup bonuses of this kind and others they may seek a waiver of those debts for a variety of reasons and generally speaking it's fairly easy to receive that kind of waiver the commanders have a lot of authority to grant waivers it any deaths that soldiers might incur and they do on a regular basis and in circumstances like this congress as i said got involved they sought to address the anything that had arisen out of this you are understand the concern as i said they put in a number of protections to ensure that this kind of circumstance does not arise again in the future the secretary of defense has also undertake a number of things to help soldiers who might have been subjected to this kind of recruitment with any financial hardship that has arisen and congress provided that any debt that was certified with respect to the enlistment contracts it is true here would not be would not show up on any consumer credit reports or anything of that nature so what's mr willman to do i take it sounds like he represents more than one member of the military what's he to do when the next member of the california national guard is promised this kind of promise and they come in and seek his advice which you do well if if you're referring to any members of the california national guard  might have been offered this kind of unless my bonus between twenty million forty two thousand and fifteen the class of soldiers who could potentially have been subject to debt was identified by the department of defense and almost all of them received a full waiver of any debt that either was or could be established against them and a refund of any money that had been withheld there are a few members who as the record in our briefs indicate did not receive a full refund but that was in circumstances in which the military established a different basis for not the soldier not being entitled to the money in most cases misconduct or a failure to serve the full term of service required by the  promising them things that they're otherwise entitled to but if you have a circumstance in which after a contract has been signed and every a recoupment of some core sort has been sought by the government there is an administrative process which soldiers are available to soldiers much like the wanted issue here and at the conclusion of that if the soldiers not satisfied with the result there they could bring possibly a claim out of the talk or act or a little talk or act a pending on the amount of money in question or  could potentially bring an a p a claim with regard to the administrative decision at the conclusion of that process but what you don't get to bring is the kind of suit that we have here alleging common law breach of contract land when the government record beginning at its excerpts of record one hundred and two dollars that where refunds were given to most i believe if not all soldiers they were paid with fees which includes administrative fees and interest and was there any penalty in addition when i don't pay the debts had been certified any you know support with regard to financial hardship and then also an assurance from congress and from the secretary that there would be no consequences on any consumer reporting  services involved and i see i'm out of time but if there are no further questions we ask that you  this case happened from soldiers asked me to exact same questions you're talking about this type of case happens about every twenty years there's not a lot of case law on it but the case law isn't it isn't the brief and i told you one hundred percent disagree with what the defense says here off it's promised upon their having statutory problem not just a contractual problem how do you respond to that that's the government's argument they're saying it's statutory but the distinction your honor is dead it's not regular pay there mak read it if you read into it it's a regular a bonus enters testimony by the under secretary of state at that time they say dissident deal they have to have some trust that they're going to get this money so that it's in it's in there and it's in the brief easy peter levine who is the undersecretary at the time said he were recouping against a one hundred thousand people at a time and this is just a fact of life and it really should be a fact of life that we file precedent binding precedent we would not be recruiting people the other thing i have to say is that these were improper contracts these warning valid they said that many many of these the soldiers signed huge contracts in good faith and there is statutory language that says that if they sign a good faith they don't