may please the court rather more yellow and with me counsel table kelly hasty on behalf of the defendant respondent maritime communications land mobile not surprisingly i have very different view of what preceded before judge  it it seemed to me a little bit unfair that mr hudson half an argument was trying to spout out those terms when they were part of the record before the trial court they weren't part of the trial and really they are of no consequence because this case was very carefully case managed we went through eleven case management orders first with madge then works now sister judge on this court and then with  including not for profit where the for profit entities transferred pieces of certain licenses to the naacp opitz they could all try to do business together but but as are saying this has just carefully cased managed we went to trial with the exhibits and it's rather can imagine all these clerks and interns in the back of the courtroom were not in that courthouse with boxes upon boxes of documents were sitting in the back that courthouse at the start of the trial through the completion of the trial this trial honor the place if i did a five ultimately for trial over four hundred trial exhibits which like i said still back to the courtroom bice's time now the trials a nine day bench trial and and as as the court has already said again allowed the plane to introduce whatever documents the plaintiff want to introduce for purposes of establishing just the first element of the sherman nash claim which was the alleged conspiracy and alternately after she'd have the opportunity to assess all of the evidence the documents the testimony mr havens was on there for days mr reardon was on there for days and this supposes surprise wide which was documentary to eighty seven which your honor judge one taste already said and recognized was before judge hayden she allowed that post trial submission to come into the record and she still found no judging recognizes that the distance from work where the site based license versus the drew geographic license the distance from that range as the court was talking about was the is should be outside of that one hundred twenty kilometer range now and that's a race around the site so and most of these sites run up and down the same base licenses right up and down the east coast issues and so it's incumbent upon the plaintiffs here mr havens to identify are you going to try to build the site within a hundred twenty kilometer range because if you're within that range then you have to are all right i agree with you your honor and that's and that's the difficult part of this is if you look at the timing of when all this is happening we're already in litigation with it with mr hagan's in california we're really geisha in with mr havens in the f c c we're already in sense if you choose a spot and if we say for example are saying these lessons in hope massachusetts if he says i want to build a site that's not hundred twenty kilometers not not more than two hundred twenty kilometers out because he's free to do that but he twenty kilometer range i pod isn't the same miles probably more than once if you go anywhere within that range and that's a huge range when you think about one hundred twenty kilometers you're talking roughly you know seven miles or so i mean having constructed stations we purchased from the waterway not we know x purchased licenses from waterway up and down the mississippi and the marshes used to use our license is to communicate ship to shore that became irrelevant after the advent of cellular and that's why change spends so much time both in her pain and during the trial to deal with how do you how do you address the competition not just within the maritime license aspect but also his satellite market the cellular market and judge hayden is this explicit findings in the trial opinion that repurpose these licenses now getting back to your honor's original question regarding the the cooperation what just came in and the plaintiffs here we describe as the cooperation orders again we we felt like we did what we needed to do before the f c c the f c c told us in a footnote two to cooperate cooperate is a two way street if the plaintiff hear it said we want to build our site tower within that hundred twenty kilometer for example when the super bowl was ongoing they were using the turnpike authority was using those licenses those dedicated licenses to transmit radio so that it could be interfered with and if they had an emergency at the super bowl to get there because the cooperation waters that we're talking about here don't prescribe it were direct and sealants to do anything all they say is that you need to cooperate to avoid it and resolve interference issues that's the word that's what this case was about when it started and that's what you're shading resolve the part is getting mixed up here is the the plaintiffs in this case through the f c c are alleging that educating recognize that all of these issues just to sum up all of these issues were before it came just a half full record before on or she had nine days of of bench trial to consider all the arguments the if i may just say with respect to the trial i came in two weeks before the trial began to take over the trial of the action so did saber we cut those exhibits that out enormously there were a hundred exhibits used by point of so trial so just to put that issue to rest your honor the key point here is that as to more than eighty percent of was site based stations that m c l m had claimed to have they have exist it takes a does a worse to say that it doesn't take thousands of dollars worth of engineering services it takes nothing but telling the truth and that's what our c e o i was incapable of doing in p a s i the same thing they tried appreciated up what thirty importance of those admissions were because they came after the trial the action there was no opportunity exploiting our doing here for you to put them in context i immediate receivership issue it was raised there on the other thing