me can i ask you as a threshold matter and maybe the other side is in a better position the plaintiffs here the former employees to second clued i mean i don't know if we know the number but what portion of the group of people who be up until the court we should this injunction the department of labor did attempt to contact as many lawyers as it could and hope we hope the rest of the united states government did not have to try down every respect to the question i guess this is part of jurisdiction where there's an argument about the j t p a or whatever it's called w y a whatever it's called no i think the other side makes an assertion i may be wrong that that just goes to the source of funding but it doesn't i mean whether or not these benefits unnerve under j t p a under the s s a s a a or whether or not they were under the statute for primary that the only difference with respect to those under the w i a program switch occurred as a lead in the same place these places are located involve just that issue where the third circuit decided it certain guidelines of the department of labor were you'll under job training the argument here is that the secondary should have gone elsewhere for jude occasion but the primary stay here so why why wouldn't you as judge newman was asking necessarily remove the secondary whether or not the primary still alive or not but paragraph three of the notice of the the order says that they'll provide all secondarily affected workers benefits and then seems to required some sort of retroactivity arguably i mean so that's provide these benefits and that proper notice at the time without any limitation change to a reduction of benefits i mean i was ill i was a little confused as to why the government is spending all of its time arguing about the notice requirements when it seemed to where we've held all along that of jurisdiction is proper in the first instance under the complaint that the court can then decide the issues rather than split it on appeal if some of the issues fall out and yes once you abandon your patent claim it goes what's good depends on whether it's abandoned before decision and at what stage whether it was really there to maneuver to manipulate jurisdiction yes can i get to ask you about the moodiness which was you know one of the basis of the alternative bases that you're asking us why was that i mean there was a delay here in the federal register notice i mean government mistakenly told these people in the federal register within the timeframe that they weren't title to benefits and then some significant amount of time elapsed before the government eventually put the federal register in notice and telling the employees that they were entitled secondary benefits my correct about that so why assuming a court this court or some other court had jurisdiction over the issue let's assume there is jurisdiction why wouldn't it be appropriate then in an instance where there is some defective s in the original notice that something more than just ok publish it now two years later but you don't have to do anything else why is it requiring something more than that appropriate  justify in terms of this injunction ordering not just the department of labor but all government resources organizing we end this year and get upset when the executive tells us we have to do  here we're telling them that they have organized a meeting and then go on the worse the city basis determine benefits which is by the way the current stage the government doesn't get the federal government doesn't get involved in that why isn't each that if he did doesn't anticipate it the question is if you would be if you would be able to come into the court retain authority to entertain contempt proceedings if in fact you alleged and it determined that what the labor party was doing in that regard was and the reason we call it makes a difference to us arguably because there's a question of jurisdiction here which is predicated on the difference between primary and secondary so it does make a difference what it was our labor rights are together and i thought you said in passing just a few minutes ago that there referred to the potential for some dispute over the amount of back pay if any that these employees might ultimately be eligible for recei that's correct while that's the point i was getting to earlier do you read the order as contemplating that the court is retaining dressed diction over enforcing you're making a determination with regard  so that it was decided to favor of the of the petitioners but if for example this court should feel that there was some flaw and that isn't the primary claim revived it would be saying that that in any area in which the pendent claim is not explicitly within the jurisdiction of the court of international trade your position is that should be it should be bifurcated my position this congress isn't that yes but i was saying the intent was to split the case we know that congress has explicitly said over and over with respect to the federal circuit for instance that cases should missions that if they had jurisdiction hundred nafta as over the primary claim they are saying nonetheless anything that might be penned into that that's not anything that might be penned into that