you before i begin i thought it would outline a couple of points that i think are worth highlighting that i tend to highlight today obviously subject to the court's questions i wanted to begin by emphasizing that the allegation here  and it's not is that the agency has failed to implement a meaningful opportunity for more meaningful exception to its sanctions regulations what i intend to do during the course of my argument is first clarify holding so the first order of business is to clarify what relief were seeking how that would affect the proceedings a far relief as requested is granted second and i want to talk briefly about the government's standing arguments and really focus on our interplay with the rules that govern rule twelve the six it seems to me that the government and its briefing has narrowly construed our complaint in an effort to avoid standing and the other thing i think that's worth spending a allegation is that the agency has failed to provide any meaningful way for humanitarian donations to get their monthly minute terry and apply for a license i'm sorry did you manage to do th gone through the process he wouldn't have been able to get a license at this point we're limited to again and this is one of the things you're going to hear from arguments route we're limited to a review of mr sacks allegations so far grant work or even just decide an application for a license with this so i can understand you're saying you started out by saying that they couldn't impose an exclusion total ban and now we're talking about whether there is a real licensing procedure in effect if they had a licensing procedure in effect that and i would comport with the u n resolution thirty seconds would it not i agree that if there were a licensing regime that time only inaccurately processed application for a license and we knew that that would comply with the u n participation a was the agency average of the license are as an agency ever allowed the humanitarian group to go into iraq and bring medical supplies i don't know for sure the only one that i have heard and this is not in to do with standing i can see the standing in your argument for his travel that's easy the more difficult one is the standing argument for the medical supplies and without that standing of course we're not going to get  any major issue in this case and finally stand correctly there has to be something if you curs after nine hundred ninety nine because the statute of limitations the only thing that's been pointed to in the records comes from the excerpts of record at six where it says mr saxes met with other u s citizens in iraq to highlight the after effects of the u s policy they're probably the best among them is united states representative jim german who traveled to ar through that puts that puts starts in iraq in two or two but it doesn't indicate anything more than travel it doesn't indicate that there was anything dealing with medical supplies my question to you is where is the showing of where is the showing that he has standing to raise this issue because he in effect that is that he has the threat that something is going to happen to him not because of travel but because of medical cases you apply the normal standards that would apply to any other allegations that went to the merits which is a complaint is a complaint had nothing orders or have to be a declaration some evidence to show standing at this stage according about at the pleading stage general factual allegations suffice for on a motion to dismiss we presume that general allegations are going to raise those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim and that's the nub of our position here your honor it brought medical supplies to write repeatedly throughout the course up to the point of the complaint well i think you might have something stronger and i'm going to lay it out here so that the government can respond to enough in the view of the panel the ninth circuit in that case to satisfy the second of the three prongs and thomas going back to what george one of wardlaw point out there's another in this frankly didn't jump out of me when i was concrete examples of alleged violations and specifically bringing medicine to iraq that's enough to satisfy the first prong and again that's what the jack of his case teaches because that case distinguishes ratifies executive orders that exempted humanitarian donations true those executive orders contemplate further regulation but congress insisted that those people ought to it before they took effect the agency didn't do that agency submit to us regulations before you prove them that the agency may not do them the same thing it's true of the united nations participation and yet that limits presidential portie to what is necessary to apply the measures emergency appeals to the president's overarching authority to make foreign policy decisions and that's where the recent harm done vs rumsfeld decision comes then i think it merits some supplemental rico to ask the court for that opportunity but ed it's not that's exactly what happened exactly that argument in harmed on president argued that under his war making powers he have the authority to decide to invoke military commissions the majority in honde on appl decide how to conduct foreign affairs and at this point with the amount of time left i will sort of the court has no question regulation which includes the medicine restriction he complains of here so the civil penalty that was assessed against him is probably warranted based on the authority that ofac cited and relied on turn for a moment to his argument about what the district court here called the medicine van which is an exception to the general export restriction and as the court has noticed noted that exception is not a  we don't have that information it's also not relevant because as a matter of constitutional standing under article three mr sachs failure to seek a license precludes him from challenging the bisons in regulation he has no case or controversy with respect to the licensing regulation and that standing requirement under steel company must be addressed before reaching the m nevertheless before this court can address those questions it must first addressed right misunderstanding the article three that area of case or controversy and in that respect it's not sufficient to point to artful pleading in the complaint it's not  possibility of further injured agents proceedings without identifying whether there's actually a risk of those proceedings taking place he has declined to identify whether he's actually committed any violations generally takes place through common carriage or other mechanisms that do not require require travel to or within another country and that's the principle distinction in operation between these two provision sachs choice to violate both of those provisions in traveling to iraq in order to personally deliver the medical supplies and other goods does not avoid that fundamental distinction it doesn't get him past that he violated both the agency made and prosecutorial discretion in its own judgment to pursue a penalty under the travel ban and not a penalty under the general export wilderness which is an unincorporated unincorporated association so to the extent that there was a prosecutor tauriel judgment to limit certain individuals in any event to travel re the government is exercised her discretion not to charge him with the medical side but nonetheless it's clear he's going after the w for the medical and he whether you get them directly or indirectly understand you to be getting at is in the indirect inforced meant of the sanction that was issued against the association against voices in the world will be ultimately you could be personally liable for what i don't know that i don't know there's any evidence in this record or anywhere evidence doesn't have to be over wells or twelve fair enough i think not even a reasonable reason to believe that it's possible the agency has made no effort to go after the individuals to enforce the penalty against the organization they have clearly distinguished between the organization and its individual members in assessing those penalties as this record does demonstrate and the question is in force made of that to pay that fine he has said in his brief in this court that the agency that oath hath might try to come after him to collect a fine but that's not an allegation in the complaint it's not an allegation that actually violating the license requirements for exploiting medical supplies as opposed to travel ban i'd like to make sure however that all of our discussion about the standing requirement of the standing in rightness elements here don't opportunity to discuss them today it seems to me the merits are clear as the voices court help in the absence of any questions about that or any further questions about standing i'd like to t remedy regulation in which the government has restricted itself through the regulation as to how its to function what is the relation and can the agency then has jettisoned its own it's been when the agency has been given specific ways of collecting and use of the mandatory term now it seems to me the agency through its regulation is indicated how it's to function you certain method well spite of other statutes that may be there but i think it can't be inspired out just was they have to be read together and when read together there's nothing in the language that you just quoted that precludes recourse to administrat collection methods why do they have to be read together even though the agency may have the power to do something if the agency itself restricts how it's going to do it it shall be referred the department justice why should we require the agency to follow couple of reasons one one is that as this court has recognized this report as well shall in some contexts when just pressing prospect of government discretionary action can be non mandatory it can be the equivalent for violating department of justice or also administrative collection remedies is thus to the only question that's presented here there's not a there's not a period before the assessment of the of the civil penalty by the agency and remember that that is the equivalent of what a collection agency would do there are a couple of choices that the department would have and first of all let me emphasize a couple of things about this referral that's described in the regulation if i met one is it is  act this regulation smacks of the targets being pushed into a collection action where they try to raise the kind of challenges that are being made here in the context of an action involving a collection agency as opposed to having the government through the department of justice and we heard earlier today counsel from says the u s attorney saying he wasn't authorized  assistant u s attorney to speak for the government that had to be done by you folks back at main justice in washington d c so there's a big difference here and that's why i'm asking the question there's a rationale conceivable here that as judge word love is suggesting that because of the nature of this act they wanted the department of justice as the screener here not just the agency kicking it out to look like what's wrong with their lancers first of all the justice department has two options at least two options under its own regulations in funding the f c c is that a question and one is that it could refer to a u s attorney's office for republics i mean i don't want to take it all of the main reason is that the agency has consistently interpreted this regulation in the same way but in all three of the sanctions regulations in which it that's what i'm asking by that statement just a few points on the issue of the extradition collection first i thought i would point out that agency the government here can test what it once conceded and if you look at the lawrence vs commodity futures  limitations issue i'm not idea in the complaint just these that this agency has not to master civil action in a timely fashion therefore they're part from bringing one and then the district court broke that issue out i think rightly so into these two different issues and obviously ruled that the five year statute applied but and then i dug deeper into this issue it does seem to me that the the agency's argument here should be familiar to that of any parent of a small child and  faced with a regulation that says you can go to a collection agency is it seems to me that some question are to be responded to from you on this basis in our cases we we have one called andersen versus allstate in which we had no jurisdiction because the judgment wasn't filed then during that time it got up to us it became final we didn't send it back we just decided we have jurisdiction why shouldn't why shouldn't we say let's not get to this cross claim if it goes back it's going to go to collection why can't we just say that will take it has it is now and it is why should we send it back and start all over again the district when we know what's going to happen when it gets back into the new regulations there's a couple of reasons one is the clock is ticking and as time passes and no administrative rather unfortunate actions are  proceedings against them with them that five year period and then further that no administrative proceedings under under the pending cases could continue because we have the existing regulation and there's a question that really isn't before the court that the part to whether this provision of the regulation has as retroactive effect and if we found in your favor on the cross claim that's means that the government cannot pursue it would we just decide that issue and not have to decide any other issue because the final issue is the government may not collect asked you know because we have the issue in this gets to the pre enforcement review discussion we still have the other some of which are within the statue of limitations your honor and the issue is going to be whether under what circumstances those may be enforced against mr saks under circumstances where the agency has expressed no disinclination to continue to enforce six and six months before i saw on television madeline albright speaking to lesley stall when sixty minutes went to iraq they saw all the things that i was going to see six months later i saw  difficult decision but yes we think it's worth the price i saw that on television and i ask myself two questions one is can a country even a democratically organize country commit massive destruction of infrastructure cause deliberately massive suffering of civilians and do this legally and the second question i ask myself as a private citizen of the country is what can i do about this so it's not an oversight that i never requested a license in fact the opposite when i came back in ninety six i thought what can i do what is my responsibility as a citizen of this country and i went to the u s federal attorney and she said she wouldn't help me to prosecute me but i didn't give up i went to the f b i and finally the office of foreign assets control i said i would like you to prosecute me for bringing medicines to iraq it took almost ten years in my belief was that if i could get into u s court of law where the rules of evidence are what governs i could begin to help americans realize which i think is not in question that the deliberate bombing of iraq civilian infrastructure their electricity the reimposing of sanctions the knowledge that this was causing massive forty seven thousand deaths in just eight months and that we were using this as a tool of our foreign policy i believe that if i could get that into a court of law i would stand some chance of being a responsible citizen in a country that i believe has done one of the massive human rights