of whether the government can accept the benefits in the performance of a contract that it knew was the result of fraud and therefore initio and you say they knew it was i'm a little confused about how things went down here and the timing they say they knew it was the result of fraud well they didn't find out a lot of the stuff until discovery in terms of th judgment that we believe were sufficient to allow us to enforce the contract there were also disputed facts that we believe needed to be resolved against the government in order to solve the issue so in some ways i can understand the court's confusion i tried my best to break this into disputed facts and undisputed facts because we believe the undisputed facts support our position that the government is equitably a stop from being able to claim that this was a void eben issue zero contract so i'm going to  preliminary question or else i find hard to understand what's going on in this case you defaulted on the contract right now that the government terminated the contract for concerts as opposed to fo convenience so they that's what we're that's what we've appealed as we but that term nation was outside of what's going on the all the arguments were making here about what they knew and what it is absolutely not because when they terminated time even if we you were to prevail on all of those arguments you defaulted on the contract and they terminated the contract on that basis how do you i see any chance of getting any relief the whole case started with us appealing said hey this contract was void and so then we got into the whole issue of whether we even have a right to claim the rights of a terminations for cars versus can convenience so the case started off as an old fashioned we  and for precisely that's what the case started off as and then they said they got this team agreement through discovery and they said aha we've caught you because this is a fraudulent contract and so they changed it within a minute complaint right again i will address the teaming agree because that seems to be their defense but my point is they always knew that singleton who was convicted had unlawfully forged my client's signature to the contract they always had never waited weighed into the into federal contracting did use the singleton who was infamous for doing the rent of that program day answer your question is he sends to my clients all of these documents that my clients need to sign in order to get their body the undisputed evidence was my client signed the last page of the steaming agreement was never product provided the first pages of the team agreement that's the problem with mr singleton i mean what the government is saying is this teaming agreement invalidated them because it's an illegal agreement we agree that the teeming agreement effective would have rendered my client in else ripple the point and again this is undisputed fact if you look at the very dying decision that they rely upon if the government can prove under the i'm sorry under the special plea in fraud statute if the government can prove that my client committed fraud by misrepresenting itself as a qualified contractor then the very die decision kicks in and my client can't on one hand be afraid be a participant in the fr y and then claim that they are entitled to the benefits so singleton i'm sorry the v a and my clients were both victims of singleton's fraud a third party fraud in their a die and the lower court the federal court of claims had held well under an unjust enrichment theory the contractor was entitled to the benefits that they put on the government however this court held no when the when the contractor is the one that committed the fried it's almost like unclean hands they're not entitled to any benefits in my case is different because the bryans whereas innocent or as were not the ones that perpetuated the fraud in fact they participated in the conviction of mr singleton so that's the distinction that needs to be made here and i want to make this point very clearly is it wasn't until after the v a at for closed on my client's bond and great american the bonding company had sued my client out in washington that we received this teaming agreement we signed we don't deny we signed the last page and shame on my clients for signing a bunch of documents that they didn't read but the undisputed facts is that my clients didn't even receive the keening agreement until it was provided in discovery in the federal washes i whatever page contract not in october of two thousand and ten my clients wanted to get back to washington state of washington they told the federal government this is not this is not something that my company contract based on default and the underlying case which you're seeking to pursue here is that they shouldn't of terminated the case for deep up your part and party to arguing that your client's contract ought to of and in such standing here telling you that when the bryans were confronted with the forged documents they told the government we don't want to perform we want to repudiate it you know what the federal government told my clients at that time is no we're not going to let you repudiate if you try to repudiate we're going to terminate your contract for cause and then we're going to go after your bond and the body company's going to come after you personally and so my clients knew from the beginning begged the government please don't go forward with this because it's an illegal contract way from team agreement well that the the teeming agreement was discovered after we had appealed and we discovered it after the government had foreclosed on our bond so what the government knew when they gave the notice her and wanted to be let out of this contract because they told her they never signed it it was a forgery if she qualified to let them out of contract well i absolutely because we're living in the us of course she's not she's not a contracting officer with the u s government she doesn't have the terribly behind on the contract that was the state of affairs they say to mr snyder we never signed this contract and she says to them well i've got a signed contract here and whether you signed it or not you know it has to be performing to terminate the contract for default and if a contractor does refuse to go forward that is the proper course of action to terminate for default and then he says a paragraph three seven with this threat that if they didn't go forward she would terminate for default which i see nothing wrong with on her part with this threat sherri and i told mr snyder we would agree to go forward with the project so they got us a cuss contract signed by someone who it turns out was authorized by them in light of the teeming agreement to sign contracts on their b we have them bringing this problem to the attention of the contracting officer and we have her saying listen if you don't go forward you're in the fall and then them saying ok we'll go forward i don't understand how that creates a percent disabled now back then he was disabled so he single company a single time was not singleton was not no going back to it judge say to your question going back to your question is the disputed the team in the dream that is an illegal contract that would have rendered them ineligible if it had been implemented but it was never implemented because section five says the only way it's implemented is if there's a sub contract in this teaming agreement was something we didn't know the terms of until after all of this occurred i want to go back to judge moore squash because i think this is the heart of the case your honor before they gave the notice to proceed so the contract was not being performed by anybody it was the october first at the outset we said we never authorized singleton to sign this he forges jerry's name he was an imposter which mr geiger admitted and said that was unprofessional but it was before the contract and the notice to proceed was let out that we said we want out so your honor there's some confusion there but but our our testimony was this happened before we swung the first hammer or did anything before so there was no contract from the beginning because there was no never any authority to singleton to sign the contract and it's pretty obvious when he signs my client's name and my client sit there and say first on they saw the contract was at the at the pre meeting the day before and they they had to print it out for jerry and she said that's not my signature and they said we just just want to go back to to the northwest we don't want to do this contract and the contracting officer who does have the authority to sign contracts and terminate contracts or accept the repudiating of a contract said i don't want to let this out again i'm going to hold you to this and in fact if you don't do the work i'm going to put you in default so  don't it that's the facts of this case i know when you apply equitable doctrines against the government it's tough hyper this case when you look at the facts and you see that we've we claim from the beginning this is an invalid contract a void not avoidable an illegal contract that could could have gone to a lawyer said no but you also understand that in the real world people sometimes have perceived and under the law we have to mitigate our damages maybe the maybe it turns out it would agreement had been put into effect so my clients did were certified they actually did that themselves where they qualified as a disabled vet program if the team in the dream that had been put into effect which was under section five of the team teaming agreement on light about the signature sure but they have to still they still have to authorized singleton to bid on the particular contracts they didn't authorize him to sign jerry's named to so to say that they had a duty to disclose the team agreement to the v a that's true only if the company had actually authorized a bid on that particular contract  although p c s raise a number of defenses and you've heard some of those today in response to the government's would have an issue argument none of these defenses expressly rebut the allegation that the e c falsely certified its status to obtain a contest but what about his argument he spent the last ten question of the forgery issue i think of it as this court is recognized to the extent that the c e is arguing that mr singleton did not have the a surety to sign a contract when he did first of all the sign on behalf of mr bryant that maybe that may be true but mr bryant claims that he had no idea that singleton was out there doing this and he had not intended to give singleton any kind of problem with that whatever under their company ineligible but they're saying they didn't do it or respect your i believe what they're saying in stockton is that besides just the teeny agreement itself they also acknowledge that there was a financial agreement and i don't remember when the parties that they were referring to is the financial arrangement where up there as mr singleton would provide what was needed for them to team bonding and a damn sure insurance and the arrangement also included his assistance in a painting these contracts in the first place in exchange for some some dollar figure some some profit that's that's the admission that the board rely on and that's the admission that despite this question of whether or not the teeny agreement was in effect that in fact there was an agreed the rights were aware of an agreement o qualified at the time it was awarded the contract as a nasty view as they raced originally they raised the argument that in october two thousand and ten or when they continued with the notice to proceed that they were eligible at that point in time and they subsequently  now argue that at the time of the action itself they were eligible with regards to the october two thousand and ten eligibility that's frankly not relevant to the question here which is whether or not at the time they were worth the contract did they are they not deprive another sort of help at least she was involved in that process i believe that that's that is what their response is to the the requests for admission later on in the appendix and i think this is an appendix certification itself but even if mr singleton did not assist them with signing the certification statements for the purposes of that at this website it's clear that they retain mr singleton or mr singleton co opted b c e in order the other thing i want to and maybe the court understands this and i'm simply not necessary but one of the things that seems it was made that is that this issue of fraud were very was raised before the contract was let out the contract was awarded in june two thousand and ten june june eleventh two thousand and ten the notice to proceed was simply a notice pursuant to the terms of the existing contracts to proceed formants of the work the for b c e she says in paragraph five of her declaration when we first started to bid on federal contracts i worked with mr singleton in the federal government to submit paperwork to become eligible under the service disabled veteran on small business program i remember receiving notice we had qualified and were on the list of eligible contractors my point in front of the the board was that if the teaming agreement was in effect it will it was illegal ice why he says he spent two years in prison and that's why my clients distanced themselves because about the time this contract was let out the noise to proceed was when we started getting calls from the federal government investigators asking us to cooperate i think it's really important when you distinguish the other cases that the government did not ever claim that we were a party to the fraud they asked for assistance to cooperate in the successful prosecution of mr singleton b c e never misses the key this contract was initio from the beginning because even under the teaming agreement which you if it was in effect it still required that singleton get my client's approval on each contract that he was going to that should have been notified and it was never notified and that's contrary to the to the regulations that were before them they shouldn't know he said at sab or something like that that they didn't read that contract w again they were qualified if the team in agreement went into effect after they were qualified it would have rendered them just qualified would have been a fraud would or they would have been the one sitting in the pokey because they had committed fraud so they were qualified the team it was look at section five of the teeming agreement it says or had to be a subcontractor my point that i can't write this well many more clearly and i'll sit down my point is that even under the teaming agreement singleton had to get my client's approval before bidding on or entering into the contract he did not have the authority to to bind my client to this contract and he did not have the authority to sign jerry is the contracting officer who knew that it was fraud boyd not voidable void as a matter of law illegal contract which i want your meeting that here you're making the argument i'm not disputing that they later agreed to have them complete the modifications they all say we hear by reassert the terms of the original greenman so when snyder signs that she knows that the original contract is void she signs for modification three and then her replacement signed the four saying we're adopting the terms of the original agreement my argument was like the case of say that the original contract is void but you enter into a new contract that incorporates the terms of the first contract you have a valid contract so y