next case of the morning is against white good morning honors may please the court take for my texas morning joe maddon chapter one verse one two simple better i don't think this is a very complicated case and i know it's not a very complicated try you know i must say it's you used to be and the district judge has said you've won this case this case is over if you've got problems with the new regime file a new suit but we have problems with the so you are filed an appeal with a five hundred dollars filing fee in order to avoid paying the four hundred fifty dollars filing fee and the district court for filing a new case no your honor if we won the case for entitled to the injunction that gives us the remedy that we saw which we originally had with  you and the adverse party not at all your of course not at all so you file a new lawsuit the district judge told you to do the right thing and here you are appealing and the only thing i can make  appeal is that you don't think you have to file a new lawsuit to contests it's new developments i don't think if we had a proper rule sixty five d order your honor that we would have to file a lawsuit after lawsuit as these regulations continue to i'm sorry if you look at the draft order that we submitted your honor to the extent we thought we could put one together we try to recite the sixty four d elements to make sure that it wasn't an forcible order that we could use down the road if and when the regulations changed in the government decided to do something against us and the other thing i would point out your honor says that all we were asking you to have done was an appropriate order that would put the burden on the government to come in later and us and attempt to amend it if a government thought it could and i just point out your honor that the the form of the accommodation this is exactly what we were afraid of was going to happen the form of the accommodation that was being devised while the suit was first pending has since been superseded by a new form of accommodation which we haven't even seen yet and in the meantime we haven't answered yes or judges said when you see it you can file a lawsuit if you are then and there are aggrieved but woodsmen who is going to clear up all your future problems korea i know why we should have to file a lawsuit every time the government changes regulation it's because it's a new regulation well it's really pretty simple and then that but but the fall back point on that your honour's if we have the findings of fact in conclusions of law that we think we would have been entitled to be a very quick and dirty and so in the second lawsuit you plead preclusion based on what happened in the first last nothing happened even i'm sorry you won this lawsuit you have received an injunction if you believe that on the basis of this injunction the department of health and human services is precluded from defending its future regulations that's the whole doctrine of claim preclusion and the second restatement of judgments you can argue that at the right time but generally have no we have no record in the original proceeding you don't need a record to rely  we believe the judgment we are entitled to your honor on the right that we would have made had we had the opportunity to do so would have been rude would have restrained the statute itself which is what we originally challenge and what we were challenging at that time i just mentioned mandate is found in the yet i mean i don't i hope i just don't have to recite the rules or preclude that it's not there you know come up i see i have found no case nor has the government cited any case authorizing this form of order for an injunction when there's been no findings  fact no conclusions of law chief assert have you ever heard of a consent decree i have they are and what this is but as time i can find more to enter impermanent junction on the existing record without well our position your honor is that this was not a consent decree that we actually did object to the terms of the order and that what we attempted to have the court do is make the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law so that down the road if something happened that we had to come back i  is an advisory opinion no no you're the one of the court to say some more things that you think might be helpful later even though it did not change the relief you're getting today i and we don't do that i want an order that survives a having lobby rolled in your favor entitling you to all the relief you asked for in this complaint correct and that's what the judge awarded you there's no need to make findings and conclusions other than what the judge said is that relief that we got under how the lobby which is against the stats so so many accommodation post subic runs its course in the administrative process you can challenge it if you're subject to it and when you don't like it what kind of do we get that requires us to come back time and time again on the same issue that's what you have to do in the laci well when the law changes people have to relive again that's the way the world works all we are asking for your honor is really presiding there is no complaint plaint of the government and i think you're very lucky there's been no motion for sanctions under rule thirty six well i have rarely seen as frivolous and september the requests for information closed but departments received approximately fifty four thousand comments and they're currently evaluating those comments you see he got a chance to speak honor i appreciate it and thank you hearing further mr white in response to those very brief comments thank you the case is taken under advi