to answer your question which is that we have every right to rely upon the government's representation of the tragic first year this is not any defendant this is the united states government which has a government government relationship with this tri and when the government is using that remedy in other contexts just like this with absent indian tribes who whose interests are implicated it needs to be acting on the best interests you know i don't know what the relevance is th the tribe claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action what is the interest that that is the subject of this action was specifically the interest that is the subject of the massu is the bluefield the approval the con how can you possibly claim that the department of justice is not adequately representing i'd interests that is the they have an obligation to do that and they're doing it in our view that the complaint raises other interests that are directed at the tribe and those interests are clearly implicated there would be no contact complaint by the indeed and it shall be treated as a reservation for all purposes under federal law and that the new nice case was not a part of this so that that's goes through my point your honor that the and neither was the tri damages motion and so the crowd felt that it needed a very good reason then to come forward and frankly as the government is the tribes trustee we have every reason to be entitled to rely on the government's representation of the trial intel something more significant came to the government to do something to move this litigation along this of this litigation of this point is now almost ten years old after doing nothing for four months the district court then issued an order requiring the parties to confer and and file by november seventh a joint status report proposal were to reflect in a schedule on which this case should proceed upon remains that order in october of one the eleventh gave the tribe deep concern that was the principal thing that changed the tribes and cern because i don't even think the government could explain to you what it might mean that we were going to address the merits once getting back to the district court there were a lot of different things said in the circuit opinion rever you could win without doing it but that still does not really have to the question well what was the reason for a month doing well why did you not move to intervention or we try and did file for amica status in order to move what was the reason for not the purpose the need but what is the key concern is whether intervention at this moment in time and not intervention generally will cause prejudice to the parties considering that the evolution of the litigation here this case now is almost ten it did in our view not consider meaningfully or perhaps at all the purpose for which we intervened because the move ruling in the need to do so to protect our interests so i think that the district  say the district court of abuse discretion by not finding time when issues were a strategy that you knew was available was not pursued by the government through all the years and now you're saying greed when i first pay you the through nineteen was available through up league right well what we said in two thousand and five and the reason for that hammock his request was that we were concerned that the government may not adequately represent her interest and fact failed to move rule making dismissal and they said in litigation that the court below said it is similar and raises many of the same matters that they have a policy of not taking a position on these sorts of cases that's proven true here they've also not a policy the jurisdiction and that is your purpose coming in it was our purpose and we think if the if a good purpose and it was used in a similar case in these your district of california was upheld by the ninth circuit i think the analysis is fairly straightforward that or claims are after we actually five months that we filed a lawsuit in it that she quotes the presence of the united states in this case there's not only protect the tribes linkers now that was that's that's speaking holding their amicus brief they knew from the beginning because shortly thereafter in hundred one imagine that there was dialogue between the tribe and the interior department i'd be surprised if there wasn't the may not  between interests and rights and we at the point of history has an interest in this litigation and and mr mccoy has said on more than one occasion he's british we have rights to be in this case well and they have analogized it to the rights that were determined in the president or get the case when friends and i would or county which was filed after our lawsuit but i will say there was a lot of plagiarism in the filings that we made for the facts and the allegations it did track our lawsuit we're seeking an a b a review of this tried right to conduct gaming on this land not this tribe's right to fine if they could that that well we're challenging whether as a matter of law the decision the secretary made was arbitrary capricious and that the secretary did render of finding in approving the amended the will will have run this course we will have challenge however in this case we're saying that the u s will prosecute this case and this is consistent with mama  the the there's a lot of cases in the circuit which certainly suggests that lapse of time alone is not sufficient to deny intervention and indicates that th perhaps prejudice as to the discretion of the district court to deny intervention what was it what is the prejudice here what is the prejudice they simply want to just put it in the remedies which in rose case were pretty gutsy because he was already exhausted his death sentence appeals but there was a question about drugs that cocktails that would be used in in the in administer in the death the district judge is waiting to see what the outcome of this case is but what that means is that that the denial of intervention is what has the only case not the  that also are going to benefit or going to be should have an interest in this matter but do they have rights and the court said well we're not going to we're not going to go there because the government again as i said before the government is going it they know they can't you know they're there may be limits to rule i'd think for the purposes of a division we've not gotten to that point which is they you know they they they've done what they've done but in this case you can't that was also just legislated out of existence but that issue but petrik did claim an interest and interest and a property right to his if you will the quiet enjoyment of his property which was down the road from where they have an interest in gaming on this land but if they can't get it they can't game on and i think as the court asked the question earlier the tribe can use it for any other purpose other than those purposes impose ever than that within a matter of federal law so they could get there and we probably wouldn't be in this court had they have gone through the trust process but they prefer to use this ranch or we have termination on to the computer and he can tell you how that exactly how that although you think you already know became a reservation there are many ways that property can be cut can gain reservation status and x plane one of them another would be a specific welcome that but that's not what they're asking for they want to get to the case to be over before you can conclude is the united states in the part of the department of the interior is the department of to have in the interior and in fact judge sitting here last catherine hansard when we argued this case before so you're coming in under twenty five you wish see twenty seven zero three four a which is reservation and not be which is other constantly  qualified and she said that is correct so that is she was clarified previously and so the question is is this reservation land that's the issue to l thank you thank you whether the the purpose of the intervention will prejudice the the county the test is whether the intervention at this point in time will prejudice my fault the district court said it would further delay the litigation least under the rowing case y maybe that's not what we would have said by wise had him use of discretion and well it actually could lead to a quicker resolution of this case if the case is dismissed number  two our trustee isn't here claiming that it's going to be prejudiced the county just said they'd be fined if we intervened in the keys to participate so it's really very difficult for us to identify especially considering that there were not interrupting for years plaintiff didn't prosecute its own case when the defendant didn't act in the best interests of the tribe so i think i think on the keys hasta under timeliness which is prejudice you just heard the county say it's not prejudice if we intervene at this point it's concerned about our winning of discretion i think that's an abuse of discretion considering that purpose and need also are not considered in that you know just focus on that alone for now the district court says defendants motion dismiss  was filed in the still pending on the merits involves the same parties because the party i have represented the case is otherwise ready for a decision the tribes intervention will further delay resolution of merits to the detriment of the existing parties the months i don't know we waited four months after the remain and happened here for the government to do something to push the case along you know the case i'm talking to the supreme court was just i don't know the time period it was was there so we think that we did and the court hel relation are you interrupting active litigation and we certainly aren't the parties are apparently happy to sit by and let this case sit on the docket that's the case it's the tried this is detrimental here and it there's a cloud on the tribes ability to move forward and do economic development prejudice but it also turns out that if you know i say says adequately representing the tribes interest in the case in which case you would not be allowed to intervene can we can we hold to th represent her interest on that point alone so that that makes this case like like smoking like united airlines that talk about interveners a movie that intervene at the time you're defining your interests aren't immunity and that's not the test for not commit rone made it absolutely clear that the most important of those who are factors is prejudice and we think the president is right but then but then in analyzing that if you look at the rhone what it's hawked about would there be further away any further away to the litigation from allowing the intervention and the district court there had not look to that at all at all whereas here the district court did w that's the most important thing how is intervening at this moment in time considering the evolution of the litigation going to interfere with the stage of the litigation going to undo things that have been done it doesn't say that it doesn't say things about undo just t laying it sounds like from rome in just a way the case further would are delaying to the unfair that from end of the party i'm i'm having a hard time especially when the county just conceded that it would allow us to intervene generally  generalized up to one hundred dollars of interest in her trial and so that was a pure a p a concern the plaintiffs they were attacking the procedure by which those allegations were made here the basis of the complaint is