compel my client we mamma contrary to its members religious and cultural beliefs to remove ancient hawaiian beryl objects from what is known as the color high caves on the big island in order to deferential standard of review so really the issue is whether the judge applied an incorrect legal standard misapprehend of the law or relied on clearly erroneous findings of fact so you now want a different setting here the way you describe the issue it sounds more like the trial court setting and we've got a very detailed document in front of us by a very experienced judge i understand so you've got to convince us in order to penetrate that you've got to convince us the judge edwards and my question has been posed to you with research with in relation to that those three questions but i'd like to kind of back up a little bit because in terms of the facts i think it's very important understand the context of this case in terms prevailing law at the time the bishop museum there after acquire these items knowing there were still frankly and i think a sense conceded because of this a knowledge just for knowledge has no right of pos of these items at all under now i will use as abbreviation for the new america grace protection would be creation and so that's very clear it's also clear that in two thousand while there were only four controversy we know the facts i don't want to i don't want to shy away from the loan aspect but i also want to clear that and i allegedly put them someplace well that's according to the trial court here and i'm going to get to that hopefully as soon as i can if i can follow my outline but it was a way ahead of your outline but go ok let's get to that point right away on because it is a point of apparent i believe manufactured contention that the location with who is uncertain if oldest call that ok there are the color high caves is somewhat complex because it is one cave with subcase within it and therefore you might see some references to caves or cave but it is a k one cave and it's been treated that we have not been able to find out and so in our minds you are and i think in on the record before you it is not disputed where the items are it's only been suggested by argument and the court picked up on and we believe that that is in of these of this question can go get them yes just on the record as it exists right today with no supplementation they would have to be some knowledge of the where this is located you are but it is i don't think this through the years of consultation from one thousand nine hundred sixty two thousand at the time of the where the skate is so the recovery team without more could go get them so the recovery team does agree to recover the artifact could go get them absolutely if if and if it turns out that we are somehow required which we believe should not happen you let me be very specific that result the court writes the court is greatly troubled in particular by the failure of whom a law meant to be forthcoming with even the most basic information regarding the current were pout whereabouts of the marked him a lot of his submitted no evidence regarding the location or condition of these items only the arguments of counsel indeed as defendant bishop museum noted with this money defendant who in milan was on memorandum states that the items are allegedly stored so they say you submitted no evidence regarding the location that's right john and we disagree don't have to be formed but in the end of decoration he specifically says that he participated directly in the two thousand reinterment of the most of the moist who at that time and so there is no dispute that at least judge that in the record on k or one hundred seven which is the summary of the bishop museum's history of this proceeding it is very clear that the it when mom appeared the march twenty fifth two thousand meeting right after the reinterment and told all four claimants at that time they're the only ones around who are officially claimants recognised where the location of the as a nat manner of returning items to a native group under the terms of either the regulations or the statute that is a a vehicle of the museum curation industry and the the principle presumption legal by the other parties and apparently the court in lower court and why is that it is absolutely necessary to have physical custody of them or in order to complete consultation sides frankly but you facilitate the disputes that arise under natural they did not do that they took sides and the conclusions of law that frankly cloud this process unnecessarily and we believe illegally and i have to read i have to call this court's attention to the fact frankly that the initial two thousand and three so called findings and recommendations which we believe in part largely were conclusions of law that were improper suggested that the lawn be recalled so that the claimants now the fourteen thirteen claimants now have access to the pool before repatriation is completed that has not i don't have this in the record you are and what i'm suggesting is last week on friday i got information from the review committee that is completely different than what is on the record before you and i would wish to have either this court picture little notice of that fact or for i will submit organization now the only desire will allow me to have a greater right than the other claimants know but at that when you see the other claimants at that point in time there are only four because the other nine that appeal that appeared later came the claim is and that's what happened after that we instrument but the question becomes whether or not prior to repatriation physical custody must must be in the hands of the museum and in the regulations that it is very clear that it doesn't information and i think just there was particularly concerned because what happened is that in the pleadings the lawyers make the statement that there are allegedly buried there no representation has been made that that is withdrawn but your respective of that i think it is unclear where they are you know maybe there are some that know i don't know who they are but maybe there are some that know exactly where there are but that doesn't mean the district judge knows of the rest of us  it look like i mean caves it could be like mammoth caves which are thousands of them all over the place or is this an area that you know we get to through a steel door you know i've seen it i have not seen it and i can't answer that question because  general area of where it is but so you know not all minds agreed that these priceless artifacts are funerary objects and not all heins agree that if they are they claimants at the present time the fourteen claimants are all identified as code for their cultural affiliation so nobody has at this time any greater status there is no recognised lineal descendant and nobody and so on monday the museum finds out that the department of one home lance infected non agree even didn't even agree to a long never mind a burial of the items and what happens play the cell force with respect to these disputed ok the case goes back to the district court judge a has indicated that he will send federal officials on this task to recover gone one claimant had asserted its views and philosophies over there was of the other claimants and so the process really couldn't continue i think there's a lot of hard feelings  again well i'm afraid that your honor is correct that that is a possibility that should there be no agreement at the end of the day perhaps we will have to come back to court and  in the case of competing claims that if you can't resolve here just for you just like in any other situation in our country if you cannot resolve the dispute at the end of the day if you have the right to come to federal court you can come to federal court and i her does give people the right to come to federal court especially in the situation of completing claims so if you take a look at twenty five u s c three thousand and specifically says that the court the federal courts will have jurisdiction over any action brought by any person alleging a violation of nagpur and the courts will have the authority to issue such orders as may be necessary you know that and agreement can be reached i mean that would of course be the ideal situation if an agreement could be reached among the native hawaiians who are claimants in this process if no agreement can be after the items were released and the national park service wrote a letter you know pointing out that there had been no agreement among the parties as to where and when the repatriation would take place and immediately after that notice was published which was already after the items have been released by the bishop museum as soon as the notice was published seven more claimants immediately came forward to make claims and so when one party goes ahead and asserts itself and signs an agreement that says it's alone and has absolutely no intentions whatsoever of returning them i also refer you to in the record k back prior to the execution of a repatriation will you have returned items answer by eddie you know now so there was never any intentions whatsoever once the document was sign s specific facts and he went through the whole record he found that he found that they never review committee had substantial basis for what they found and so basically he made his own findings as to what had happened he made his own particular find just the facts as to what had happened and so i think their first amendment claim also has no merit i don't think that by going ahead and something that really was wrong that they can now come into this court and hide behind the first amendment and i think judges who are very sensitive fully looked at their claims under the first amendment and he tried to do everything he c to make sure that they wouldn't they wouldn't be and a situation where the first amendment would be violated and so i don't think that they can make those kinds of claims so unless you're under seventy for the questions i'm go walking bishop who is recognized by many as the last descendant of the coming home in hell family serving in representing the interests of native hawaiians is the primary purpose of the museum and the museum has been designated allow the claimants the opportunity to view the items to have a certain amount of report with the items in the process and that is one of the mean reasons why the later recognized claimants are being denied their rights they do not have that ability to actually have access to the items to participate in the process because we were mama has taken the items and we buried them somewhere now with respect  location and i know this is an issue which judge tried and probably all of you are concerned about is not only were they taken and where were they placed in two thousand john jones was very concerned about where are they today what condition position with respect to the location i would be much more stern going and much less likely to take affirmative action in this case if i was confident that these remains were in an appropriate location or medically sound kept in a fashion that would provide for their integrity but i have nothing in front of me that indicates that is the case and nothing was said as far as factual evidence by whom alarm nothing was presented any effort and with cultural sensitivity and true caring for equal opportunity for all of the claimants he chose to issue take a very brave step quite frankly with a correct step to issue the preliminary injunction so that the artifacts can be preserved so that there can actually be a deliberation a trial on the merits something can be decided as to the proper disposition of these items i don't know if any of you have any questions for me i'd be happy to answer any questions since the museum is not a claimant it does not have a claim for right of possession as it is defined in that process and many of these terms are used very loosely and i think it's very important when the court goes back in reviews the records and the clerks review the record very carefully that they took take a look at the definitions for instance there was by learned counsel about giving up control the museum never gave control control is a legal interest and it is defined in that process and the definition should be looked at carefully therefore you i take it that your you've been given the citation so i have thank you learned counsel on the other side resists a definition of loan that seems to counter what you were telling us earlier that alone really doesn't have anything to do with all of this and w to get possession it's all over your head is a definition of a loan in in that group in the regulations there is not however a place for a loan in this circumstance where the where the museum has no right of possession because they took stolen goods knowingly  and they cannot moan something that is stolen that they knew that was the case to me gives every appearance of and i mean no disrespect but your side trying to hijack a process that's to that supposedly to allow everybody who has a potential claim and there seem to be many here to come to the table and sort it out and your side comes across as trying to hijack that process well i think that view with all due respect to just trot i think is misinformed because the interpretation of negative being ignored here frankly i hear you know prices are facts i hear false pretenses i hear inflammatory accusations thrown at at whom a llama in the hope that one of them will stick but the what are your clients intentions if at the end of the day in their long process that we've heard about this there is an order that the items themselves be returned and something else be done differently with them by other parties well you have the same response you that if you know how is this order issued a good district court comes to a final conclusion that they're not properly in the cave that they need to be returned to somebody else to do something different with them frankly honor these items are now in the hands of the thirteen corners and it should begin in the hands of the museum or fourteenth claimant that comes in late as only recognize this year four years after repatriation is killing all the district court is saying is the district court has concluded there's a danger of a reparable harm to very valuable objects that everybody agrees and the district court is simply trying to make sure that that that harm doesn't come about that the objects be protected and then a decision is made according to to what to do with the objects i'm not sure what the big problem with with that is there's no legal error that i see it seems to make a lot of sense and the conclusion that these objects may be in danger is is supported by the law by the yemenis in the frankly makes the issue of whether or not these items are priceless or not irrelevant to these proceedings because the our whole idea of not problem is to restore or reset the balance that was it was  imbalance of power between native people and use iams who were saying exactly what you're saying about the priceless in this of various objects that they had taken without consent from native people and what had happened is that congress recognize that over one hundred fifty s through hundred years of this history if people were deprived of that ability to be able to see a culture that's the museum is out of this now and it's between the people who have a legitimate irreparable harm in this case which is is not appropriate in dollar value when i say priceless not only about dollars and most of the claimants it's not a dollar value it's important to them that's right it's priceless that's right but it seems to have affected this court's conception of why it needs to step in to protect these items from the bugs from the theft which you are totally speculative the dollar value that's what prices mean we don't care about the dollar value there's another value that's of steak that's right that's responses trust stuffs you know we know where it is you don't know where do we know the condition there and you don't know but press just will be fine i don't think that there's an element of trust us in terms of where the items are  district judge has said you were not forthcoming about location and how they were placed and there's nothing in the record that supports your statement that says yeah people know where they are but but all due respect as well as i think