afternoon everyone and welcome to the gordon bank is in session in for your argument in one case then maybe observe the court include for the first time o something akin though not identical to the same two tiered statute in the way the sixty one day before and the fifteen day after limitations you don't just have a single enumeration of no filing within fifteen days after is your perception having immersed yourself in this precedent that there would in fact be no circumstance in which equitable tone would be prohibited and last in fact supreme court cases were confronted with language that on its face appears equally mandatory equally not susceptible to exceptions and yet those cases earlier they were supreme court said not legislating what it was option for decades and decades it's a relatively new invention and in early in the court emphasize the importance of predictability in this area of law it was attempting to synthesize fire stations it's really a  cited by the board the the we have you know that there can be appeals which don't involve which go to the board which don't invoke seventy seven or one when some other statute provides for the right judge that might be limited to attorney argument in the case of a represented claimant were perhaps a statement by clement representing himself but not necessarily case i don't know that as a matter of statutory interpretation or constitutional process that that would necessarily be quired in any case but i do think at their minimum it would be an opportunity to appear before the tribunal before the language doesn't appear to be very detailed or technical or repeated and certainly there's a lot of legislative history suggesting that the veterans are supposed to receive every benefit under the act how does the br minded statute that there might be a little bit more leeway within such a tight time frame certainly it's a very short time period but coupled with the paddock and the structure you know believe that the  business that we're talking about happy to help me understand that i read this that there are two sixty day period one fifteen day period but the two sixty day period really ar and all it says is hey you have to be patient for sixty days before you try to take it away from the mediation role that d l l plays that's all it does it doesn't take it limiting the fifteen days specifically because of the employment situation that  presumably the the consequences of a victory in that filing would be something in the nature of some back pay but it is not a displacement of the individual to whom is is the is the fact that it's a time to review provision in any way relevant to that under the subject matter hitting as a factor against equitable code in other words or with our time just want to be sure i understand the government's position is it that those cases are wrong more or crack the pendant or wire or that at least in this case as a matter of policy  rigorously and strictly construed no matter how easy it might be to rationalize the room in the judicial mind for let's say a next year science or justice or fairness in a particular case you're government papers i've just a couple of more things before we go on to the other issue in part it involves the position of the board and perhaps you could help me understand that as then go through the video well process and then presumably within fifteen days after after you gets notice of the outcome goes to the board everything's fine let's assume for the moment that he files with the video well on the sixty first day or sick the second day after the senses occur  i read your brief to say that you probably think that that sixty days waive appeal by deal well i think that makes some sense let's assume that the dio well wait the sixty day rule and says ok fine you've filed on time or you're filing his time well right they now go through this process with the fall and the deal well says well we haven't been able to resolve this which are within fifteen days after that be filed with the board it's i understand board boards and the saying sorry even that won't work it's clear the board is saying if you haven't followed filed with the o l at all you're dead meat correct ok and i think we probably all agree with that but i don't understand your position or the board's position if you file a flight you get forgiven by the d and a comparison of forty three twenty four and seventy seven votes further support these are different for instance a forty three forty four congress does not do not a hearing because the board is for certainly free to establish procedures on itself the congress says you have to give a hearing in every case and it seems like it would be fair wouldn't it for the board to say you have to request it hearing in order to get short their claims by clearly listing its regulations right it could just say these are complaints not appeals and as such since we have the power of the statute to prescribe specific rules we state appeals or discretion i mean are we we say  assistant director in the civil divisions commercial litigation branch we don't so often have assistant directors or directors breaking the briefs and delivering arguments we appreciate that there are also two amicus briefs to assist the work of the court one was mentioned