defendant for the last two years we've been asking the partner of labor to recognize us as a trustee of the single employer plans under twenty nine u s c one one three two d the ul has that responsibility to determine the status of an employee benefit plan as an entity this is no court has decided this issue i thought you had in arkansas it did not decide the issue as to whether or not we were the trust of single employer that arkansas issue now i was planning on dressing it later under twenty nine u s c one one three to be the deal well has a responsibility to determine employee what an employee benefit plan is as an entity and employee benefit plan is comprised of two parts the plan and its trust together they make an employee benefit plan since february fifteenth of two thousand and two we filed numerous issue of tremendous confusion we are only the trust of a single employer plan that's all we are we are the bank that's we've served no other function other than that we hold in trust in this particular  the insurance policy and that's why we held we didn't hope any money at that time so we are only the trust under five a one thing i as a nonprofit tax exempt trust now under the visually for what happened to the trust and to the plans only the problem is in texas they did not want to recognize the single employer plans this is right now the subject of the supreme court action which we have already filed under the part of regulation to five one zero point three ten one hundred one k the trustees of the trust are also the trustees of the plan itself you cannot separate them and that is what the what the deal well that clear line of responsibility because you have to have someone finally responsible we are the responsible party we're not trying to get out of it when in other words we want to walk the course to recognize that that is exactly what we are we're tired of all of your complaints the only way that we will recognize you as a trustees of the trust of a single employer plan is you go to a to a federal district court and you get declaratory leave saying that that is what you are and that is the only way in which we will act on any of your complaints for two years i have not acted on our complaints and that is why we are here today what's even stranger is that the deal well who told us to do this is now opposing this very same action what i'd like to get also sounds is to the article three requirements of a of a declaratory really fashion the deal also as there is no controversy but there is the controversy is for two years we have been asking the deal specifically to give us a determination under twenty nine u s c one one three one one three two b and for two years they absolutely refuse they will not talk to us every time we send something to them there's no reply there's one time however that we damage attributable to the deal actions it's not actions in this case it is in action they know what has been going on they have refused to take any actions by refusing to take actions they allow the and able and we would then have to the standing to bring that action the last issue is whether or not this this action would serve any useful purpose worst six hundred and forty nine single employers who made contributions deductible and deducted these from their income taxes would now be held subject to penalties and interest from the i r s they would have all of their deductions disallowed trustees of the trust of a single employer plan and then we would have the standing to go into the deal office in pasadena and said here is clearly a anniversary violation we want you to take care of this then they will be forced to do that however we can't do that standing must be clear that we are the trustees of the trust of the street employee plan the other issue is the states would also are preempted from regulating cell funded single employer plans again if the states decide what we don't want to listen there's lead then as trustees of the trust of single employer plans who's who have an obligation to the plans and then go to the deal and say this is your job you got to do it and if you don't do it we'll bring a vital to action against you was yes raise the issue of crawlers agenda life but the judge didn't want to hear it he said he didn't want to address that issue he said as far as he was concerned arkansas decided this matter he was wrong because arkansas didn't didn't decide what we were asking for