i have real difficulty with the notion i have respect for sovereignty both our governments and other governments but here we have a sovereign who actually participated in th case actually participated in the case through capable counsel and made a decision presumably a well informed conscious willful decision you know i don't care about this of care about this case i'm out here never to be seen again and yet we have this district judge stepping into council shoes to put it somewhat loosely raising affirmative defenses only half of a sovereign nation that was in the case and made a conscious decision to get out of here you know what it doesn't look like america case for a while and then said you know what united states is out of here i don't think you know any of those judges would step in to counsel shoes and start raising affirmative defenses that the united states department of justice chose not to raise so sorry for the longwinded introduction let's go forward here so ben doesn't care about this case doesn't care about affirmative defenses where does the united had one shot of appellate review on the question of jurisdiction they lost and they said ok we're out of your mouth so that was of course as your honor is aware it was the first case that we're talking about here now is the second case and i  treated as it didn't otherwise appear but let me actually just offer real legal answers to your question sort of setting aside the fact it's well established i think this is sort of common ground amongst all of parties in this case that the question of race judicata is a little bit slightly different context related to the statue of limitations and aaron every site that a certain degree of economy needs to be shown towards a sovereign so just the mere fact that it's a sovereign autonomy needs to be shown towards them is sort of one we think special circumstance a special court it seems like to me that if congress wanted to be more expansive than that clued affirmative defenses and other items that the court like recognize that they would have ordered this statue differently they were very having a special screening function used before it's ability to do that and if i could just isn't the screening function they're really focused on the merits of the claim evidence sufficient to prove the versus california sort of pointed out that there had to be an extensive prior litigation on the question issue there here by contrast obviously there has been a prior case that went to judgment indeed that case came up to this war three different times now again but the fact that it's an absolute sovereign who has appeared in the earlier case appear appeal and then abandon the litigation that doesn't that doesn't affect your analysis at all not in our view your honor i mean for example in ask and i should point out by the way you are in this is an important distinction obviously the plaintiffs had sued the defendants for speed on the ship terrorism but at the point of the district court raised this question to respond there was not yet a judgment in the case against i mean in other words the they didn't leave the case they just refused to participate there are sat for the entire careers and point of fact they were part of what came before you when we got into this issue of because religion as far as we were