minutes rebuttal time yes sir that's right thank you very kindly if your honour's please i think judge we can correctly noted that this case presents an issue of first another aspect of what was before her honor yet without mentioning chevron deference on the issue of retroactivity ny for accepting it nor rejecting it this case i contend that it does in fact that mr kazan is a whistleblower within the meaning of the dod frank section  association shall have jurisdiction and what i am respect fully saying to your honor judge how it is that arbitration is arbitration and what we have here is him to proceed to a jury trial you know and i could understand about this it's easy to actually we sit here is a judge you're always looking backwards so you can see what should have been done so yes i understand that but there's iran or judge greenberg you make me feel good about myself because when i was preparing for this for a lark and i must have asked myself that question five times i am about to argue to you that it is not ambiguous with a straight face severe for i must concede that it sure could have been clearer than it is it sure could have been clearer that it is but i'm not going to say that i can see it is ambiguous equalise to take judge greenberg's point and if i may run with it congress was not saying merely because it didn't say merely in the future don't draft employment agreements with mandatory arbitration clauses pertaining to whistleblowers because if you do that in the future they will be on enforceable congress to say at congress said no agreement compelling arbitra honor continues to make me feel good about myself because i thought i was thinking about that as well and what we have here i submit is a high grade there is not any ambiguity but congress minimally failed us i not being quite as clear as it could have been you are you're clearly proceeding and dodd frank  you point out that the intent of dodd frank was to enhance what sarbanes oxley had provided because the infirmities in our system continue to get worse your case is almost entirely under not almost is entirely as a direct frank and the provision that you rely on plainly says that it was tricks only the arbitration of cleanings presented under this section using section fifteen fourteen a title eighteen yes here but title eighteen refers to sarbanes oxley so the entire arbitration provision doesn't seem to apply to your case it it was i believe in the preceding statute to dodd frank and i submit to your honor that you have a statute that explicitly enforcing that statute well but when you say tenth of congress they certainly they could have said they could have mentioned i don't know fifteen as well but they didn't he explicitly said title eighteen which seems consider the overriding intent here your honor you've got protection of a whistle blower a whistle blower must be encouraged to come forward and i suspicions i i submit that there is and i submit that in the view and i appreciate what you're saying in the view of the district court there is the quarrel in this lawsuit as to whether it exists the i don't i don't think that but what was raised wasn't always in the we know that's what i'm saying i don't think that there's been a quarrel in this lawsuit that  the issue applies to whistleblowers the under dodd frank they made twelve p six motion that was focused on whether mr hayes in the plaintiff let us assume having been terminated first and having lost the race to the securities and exchange commission although he went there and they raised that issue but as your honor judge greenberg points out they have never argued that i'm aware of that the ban on i think that under the boeing case which was cited by my distinguished adversary there is a difference and i hope i'm answering your question just count there is a difference between whether to apply in the dod right even though what you're talking about but as yes you see speaker was a private organization they they were speaking to a private organization but at the same time interpretating the statute and saying what i believe is appropriate and what judge greenberg opened the door for me to say didn't exactly say his honor himself but which is that none of this makes any sense from the standpoint of remedying a problem if you've got millions of workers out there who need to be pro tactic in their capacity as hoa tensional whistleblowers none of this makes any sense if you are saying to them well this only applies to future agreements people it has nothing to do with any of so the first reason it would be the explicit language of the second explicit language of the dot frank text itself and strong federal policy in favor of upholding arbitration agreements contractual rights and if party steely enter into a contract that contains an arbitration provision it's to be upheld to the fullest extent retroactive looking back from here it looks obvious but this one really does look obvious even from the looking for just what respect for your honor i do think if you take careful look at the text of the d longed period of comment and review where congress did entertain potential amendments and this issue as far as i guess definitively stating that it did that the prohibition on pretty  now without the sarbanes oxley already anything else wrote it the murray case that the southern district cited in january twenty fourth team does make that exact distinction and does which is also the the court that held the one case two years earlier well you know what i meant was this that there were so many of them that the question of dealing with all these agreements that were there and there's been a lot of litigation about it what of that congress must have been aware what was going on and was thinking about all these agreements you know that in the political you know dealings with washington as when there is a question as to the temporal scope of a statute the courts not look to agency interpretation or other outside interpretation if a statute is either silent or ambiguous a this is the substantive right because it's of the contract so i think that to extend that reasoning they are saying that they are being deprived think that logically one could castigate a jury trial in that matter therefore it must be a procedure old issue a choice banning mandatory arbitration clauses in the case of a whistleblower because of an infirmity in the system does that infirmity the finding of that infirmity shed light on whether this is  substantive right how can you proclaim you've got a substantive right at this point in time when congress has said there is a serious problem in our system the economy almost went to the brink and one way to remedy that terrible infirmity is to allow plaintiffs who are whistleblowers to have the right to a jury trial or to have the right to a court hearing in any event not to limit such a plaintiff to arbitration we heard from mr tasia often i don't want to overly emphasize his words but i wrote him down anyway there is no inherent difference he said you have rights in arbitration and remedies you have rights in a court room and remedies he says there is no inherent difference is he not therefor supporting my contention that what we're talking about is procedural and choice of forum not substance because if this is substance then we're draw the bright line that says look if something's in a contract it must be substantive the court shouldn't even do an analysis and i don't think that that is the direction one want to travel in fear you should get the same result percent correct and i know my time is up i would just add to that by saying in this instance when one's right to a trial by jury is impacted i hardly think it's a deprivation of adversar