evidence of terror violations because they had laws to do any discovery and they hadn't allowed us to put in any evidence that we went to the court in two thousand and two and ask for the right to do that discovery that's what we spent the next several months doing doing the discovery in accumulating the  answer to this question there other is other language in the settlement so that the tend to suggest i think are intended to have the effect of precluding claims for the same kind of thing the same time period for example  intervention and all the rights of our participation should be accorded to us including review on the merits and we don't expect you to provide review on merits in this case but what we request is that you want to provide for us intervention that is consistent more that makes a big difference to rate pairs and the results will flow through the great bear and that's really what mr gallagher cares about and what i care about that is are we indeed allowed to continue pursuing that additional three hundred fifty million dollars on top of the sort of thing or whether they presidency when we've made a request and there's a formal proceeding they have to give an answer at least once they give the answer if we don't like it we have a right to challenge it and i guess if when we challenge didn't they put our argue that they've given a reason period the second one now what the commission did in these orders were to resolve certain identified investigative proceedings the commission did not absolve reliance of all responsibility for all activity prior to october two thousand what the commission did was to numeration certain of the investigative proceedings commission is reviewing supplier conduct in determining whether that specific conduct violates the tariffs under which those suppliers have been president so it's not yes and i hope other suppliers and i hope the california parties are able to do so in other cases my understanding it's going to be harder if we have two different cases running around that's quite separately i don't know if it's harder if it's any easier i know that the california parties have been able to the titians for review frankly i believe that there are some instances in which it is helpful to have a separate standalone investigation and i believe the facts of the reliant one c reliance brought to the commission's attention the fact of the withholding of capacity during these two days in june of two thousand and the advantage of having a smaller investigative proceeding is that it makes it much easier for the unfortunately blended together the notions of investigations and into force and that's what the commission does undertake a fact finding investigation that investigation may lead to an infor zero nine of the federal power act which were found sixteen u s c the sections eight twenty five f and twenty five age those are sections that detail the commission b those provisions indicate that the the form of the investigation the form of the force and proceeding can stake any number of different formal or informal a public or yes in this case the investigation did not believe have not been shut out of the process rather they have been able to participate and actually participate quite fully and i'm glad your honor asked for some clarification petitioners as parties but the california entities were fully able to participate and fully able to be heard in a meaningful manner consistent with the court's august two thousand and two order california parties as well as other parties submitted voluminous evidence concerning potential markets manipulation the california parties with commission  reliance one series of orders the commission laid out in its intervention order and the rehearing order all of the arguments presented by the california parties and in the reliance to proceeding based upon this october sixteenth two thousand and three order position or have referenced the commission decided to treat the motion for intervention as a motion to submit bake advantages of having a stand alone investigation and having a blast comprehensive gargantuan case my understanding is that the california clear that he is available the courts mediation office has made it quite clear that it is very willing to intercede if necessary to try to help negotiate  as we see from the reliance of one case the type of disclosures of wrongdoing the withholding during these two days comes to light much  for such in order to produce those discussions what i think we would ask for as it is more of consolidating these cases with the refined case appeals and we could ensure that our claims didn't get lost in one bucket or the other but somewhere they were going to be addressed it was going to be formed i dressed for a moment the question crossed your prosecutorial discretion you asked whether there was prosecutorial discretion in responding to such into of six complaint the answer to that is no they do have to follow the regulations and actually provide an answer that's consistent with their procedures here to give you a good hands around the complete receiving they do have some prosecutor of discretion i think the new york partner of law cases like this the most