mystery morning your honor sir before i get into the nine hundred ninety four memorandum of agreement that i think is the crux of the trial court's error here i'd like to put a little bit of context briefly around that issue that i think will help clarify how we think about the error you're one of the trial court found that the roughly ten million dollars in fees at issue here was the port authority is money belong to us it also found that the c b p collected and retained that money over our objection has that money in its pocket to this day finally it's undisputed that from two thousand and seven through two thousand and ten c b p collected and kept that money under color of federal law that it subsequently conceded was in applicable now your honour's if we leave the them correct right and it seems to me that what we really have here is an agency problem that for some period of time the virgin islands government said to the u s government stop collecting these in the united states and continue to collect these fees you might have an illegal exaction you know what i believe that is what we have well let me  but your problem it seems to me is the you didn't say stuff you knew that they continued to collect the fees and you didn't tell him to stop you kept trying to negotiate with them to make a change to the memory and agreement so why should it be that they lacked authority to continue to collect these fees when you were not clear that you wanted them to stop review your honor i disagree with the premise that we were not clear i think we were crystal did two things to revoke the authorization that they purportedly at one we took the instructions out of our marine tariff that ordered mariners to pay these fees to customs that had been in place since one nine hundred sixty nine and we would submit it was the original authorization that we went to them they sent them a letter in two thousand and seven stating that two things explicitly one the i'm away doesn't have anything to do with the port authority we're not a party to it and two you are wrong that you have to request that you are required agency doesn't make any difference if a revocation is contrary to an agreement but your honor let me finish that under the law of agency you can revoke authority even some polish of agreement that would give the agent the already to sue for damages perhaps but that's not what's involved here but you still it seems to me need to be clear that you want them to stop and for years they continue to collect and you what else we could have done in those circumstances other than start a war with the customs service which would not have been beneficial to anyone of course we continue to negotiate but we never conceded that the power they were asserting was correct and indeed they subsequently admitted that it was not islands involvement is not even really relevant to the question we on the fees the district court to the trial court found as much we put in a substantial amount of evidence and argument suggesting that the em away is simply a writing that deals with about this we have now are not arguing and have never argued that there was no authority prior to two thousand and seven we freely concede that they did this with our permission for the better part of forty years the question is whether could they keep doing it once we asked them to stop the answer to that your honor is not and the reason that it's you know is that there's no basis for them to continue doing it lawfully once we've requested that they cease doing it there has to be a statutory basis for them to take our money lawfully and not have to give it back explain i think with some success why it is that the emulator as you pointed out can't possibly be the authorization and if it's not the authorization then the trial court had to be wrong that we couldn't revoke the authorization without an amendment on in my own mind whether the claim is for two thousand and seven or it starts in two thousand and seven or two thousand and eight i think it was two thousand and eight it would be because they only responded to us reservists respond denying our request for the end of two thousand and seven so we couldn't claim i think maybe that i guess i don't know the answer i think the the on our position is that at least from the moment they delighted declined our request to collect our own fees they were collecting them on lawfully that may happen in the end was signed only by the government of the virgin islands was the source of authorization and you don't need to get into that question we don't we have no there is no dispute between the port authority and the government on this issue there simply is no dispute that there was a story for two thousand and seven and what these fees correct whatever the source of the story might be correct if if the authority has to come from the government at some point he has to revoke th fact pay money out of their own wall and there's no money timing out of the wall here well so i'm not inclined to waiver of sovereign immunity issues underlying honor i submit to you it is wholly consistent with the theory of a legal exaction if the government could avoid a legal exaction simply by stepping in between someone's money and their own receipt of that you're just licensing conversion i mean if there's not if there's a better case for you are opening the door i mean if you look at or linnaeus there you could make a very similar probably a better argument there that in fact there was no payment to the government no money entered the government's coffers right the court had no problem they're saying that a payment to a third is with the government of the virgin islands the supreme know what remedy would they have against the united states they say that you have kept money which belongs to them that the customs authority was revoked stage in terming jurisdiction we have to assume that they have a good point their claim is you at once had the authority customs once and the authority to collect that already was revoked customs continued to collect that's in that legal the government of the virgin islands was incapable of executing this agreement with the united states that's a claim based on virgin islands law and the court the circuit's law is clear  that the customs no longer had the authority to collect the and that by keeping the money and continuing to collect the government gauge illegal exaction that's their two thousand and seven letter was an effective post of the read or your honor first of all i think that assumes the government has ever had a direct relationship with the port authority that there's no merit to that claim the through the memorandum of agreement the port authority never received any money directly from the us government at all was worked through this memorandum of agreement money was deposited into the virgin islands deposit fine once it was collected the government fees w subtracted and then it was remitted to the treasury of the government of the virgin islands the only way they ever got there there at the wharf edge in tonnage fees was through a separate agreement with the government of the virgin islands that they have never produced this violation so look just accept for the moment if the governor said stop collecting the fees wouldn't posters have to stop collecting the feet again your honor if you had an agreement that provided for that i think here we even this may be a surprise to the supposed it's your hypothetical questions you have i ask you a hypothetical question what's the answer to if that's the hypothetical then yes but i would maintain that the facts of that hypothetical are distinguishable from the facts of this case here we had a memorandum of agreement we had of we have a statute that says the government can provide services on a reimbursable basis that is forty eight u s c fourteen sixty nine c you also have a stat that appendix forty five article have never at any again looking at the federal statute which which requires the court to look at the reimbursable service is agreement which is what we have which says it makes it you do as you would or look you doing yes it says to the extent practicable services facilities and equipment of agencies instrumentalities the united states he made available on a reimbursable basis i mean here we explicitly have an agreement and the record supports that this agreement is the only thing that ever the silicate of the governments collections in the virgin islands they were as the court can see at appendix two twelve they withdrew their implied contract claim they claimed repeatedly there was some other source that govern this arrangement and there's been absolutely nothing to support that the t only where port users are to pay money and that they were allowed extensively on this cannes deposition testimony but she couldn't provide any particulars about any agreement between the united states and the virgin islands other than to say the process was the process was the process so all were all anyone's been operating under since one thousand nine hundred ninety four and before that one thousand ninety two was this memorandum of agreement and there's there's simply nothing in the record that would support an indeed they drop their summary judgment claim that there was any separate authorization arrangement between the united states government and the and the port authority the only arrangement here has been between the united states government and the government of the virgin islands and to the extent there is a dispute as to whether the united states could negotiate with the government of the virgin islands that's an issue of virgin islands law which is not as a court correctly concluded it's not cognisable under an illegal exaction theory which has never been expanded to include sources of foreign law yes your honor that's our position it would be is it would be an unwarranted expansion of the illegal exaction doctrine whenever the court has talked about letter that we provided to stu c b p in two thousand and seven it does two things it says about the em away which we wanted one moment in two thousand and six c b p initially told us yes you can start collecting your own fees but we have to we've then submitted this letter to two c b c saying two things one the m o way has nothing to do with us these fees belong to us the government made that agreement it's not about whether you collect these fees or not it's just about the methodology of reimburse we also said you are incorrect that you are required by federal law to refer to collect these fees a position which turned out to be correct if then specifically request that we start collecting our forty's when they responded they interpreted that letter a direct request for them to stop doing what they were doing and they rejected it and they rejected it on the basis that they were required by law to reject it never their position here is not you failed to the authorize us it's that you can't  authorize us because we're required by federal law to do what we're doing they maintain that position until at least and of august of two thousand and ten during that period there was nothing we could have done to deal with arise their country that was their position their the federal government we couldn't simply stamp our feet and stop doing what they wanted us to do we have a very important relationship with stevie p that had to be maintained they do a lot of things that they're required to do and that they do want to reimbursable basis for us so we continue to engage with them the important fact here is that there was absolutely nothing we could have done on their theory judy authorized their conduct until november of two obvious to two thousand and ten when they switched to this reimbursable services