of their domain so to speak in a way to get a judgment to attack and grab that money it's like if you had the sovereign in this it's at the magic mountain the circle you have the treasury in the circle or outside that circle we're seeking simply to enforce our right and interest in attorneys fees which was granted to us pursuant an agreement in two thousand and three the market the money were already in the solver then we would have a different we would have a problem with against the person who wants to recoup sovereign hasn't gone to court against you know they've gone to court going out against you correct and and you're going to court against them  awfully yes oh that's the same as if they were a defendant in any other case you want their money you want money and you have to sue them and get vacuum determination in your favor that they owe you money we can't assume that they owe you you had a or any amount of money yes i mean there's no question a lawsuit was filed that went on for nine years and has it and there's no question there was an agreement that was signed and there's an interest in understanding the firm would receive twenty five percent of this on the proces or judgment alternately there's no question about that and that's that's been litigated have been with the gator for for over nine years so we're not now coming up there's tribe would never ever have to pay money that is obligated to pay it's not a blanket that says they could just add of course high rewards and contingent fees and then the night before the th which is what happened here say w waters case it is a good example of when sovereign immunity is implicated in the waters case it's similar fact with the lawyers were discharged and then the warriors did not seek to intervene they waited till the money was paid to their former client and then they sue the government that's an independent claim they brought against the government and the concerns about going out are going to into and into the into the government's treasury and going  money is now you are for other things and this money is earmarked for a settlement the government is going to pay that either way all receiving judicial interference by the court to to allocate what we here and the principle is that this is something that the courts have jurisdiction to resolve when there's a contingent agreement the court that is that is hearing this subject lawsuit has the authority and  dispute over the contingency fee agreement based on ethical principles sovereign immunity doesn't preclude that and it doesn't preclude that because this money isn't in the treasury and we're not attacking their their their their their public it's to protect us from going for a final rd of a nd lawsuit against the somme or to enforce a contract that's not what we're doing here this is an ethical or theories that i believe we have the right to do under law the the government makes an argument that somehow we would be violating the government's are really if the court issued an order to interfere with directing the court the government how to pay this money and i think that basis argument in every and every bit of these cases where the there's a settlement or there's a judgment the court issues an order directing the government on how to pay that money if they get if the tribe is not trying to not pay their legal fees here we would still get to a judgment and the judgment would direct to the government how to pay that money this money that the government's going to be paid is not your mark or something else this is not interference with the government state u s government's day to day operations that money's being paid either way this is just another order that would direct the government on and how to pay th m as you question i'm actually getting a little more confused about the nature of the attorneys leans in our opinion and democratic central committee versus washington metropolitan area plans association we say proceedings requires an agreement you agree with that that we have passed on with you did you begin and yes there has to be an agreement yes so if there is no agreement which is the tribes position that you don't have an equitable well i don't have a lead you don't have a charge only is that right well i think you get it too there's there's other ways that they may approach attorneys fees but there has to be an agreement correct there has to be some authorization whether you think it's the argues twenty five percent or whatever they're going to say it's not just an equitable right and did work like some kind of quasi contract you you did work for them so they have a right you have a right to has to be litigated and the tribe is disputing that they have an agreement with you that makes them the defendant in the dispute but it's it's it's a defendant in the sense that they're defending their position or they're t aking a position in the the and i've seen in my time but i don't respond to this question it makes them a defendant in the sense that they're taking a legal position about defeat but it doesn't just because they're taking a legal position and are as you parcel part of this lawsuit that's being litigated that's outside that circle sovereign and this would be an expansion of sovereign immunity to apply to any time there's interest issues resolving fees or monies that are outside of  how you this is this case is analyzed and i think that neglects to recognize the nature of the funds at issue here which are funds held in trust by the united states government for the try  these are these are not somehow outside of the tribes purview that the fact that these are not your mark day think is irrelevant to the somebody else analysis and i think assumes a lot that's that's not in the record and i won't go into what the tribe intends to do with these guns in terms of supporting its governmental services it's  due to equitable considerations it goes to court subject matter jurisdiction we can talk about sovereign immunity and and how it over lies this case but at the end of the day this goes to the court's authority to hear this case there it is the tribes position that there is no money owed on this invalid contract my friend came on to the yankton sue tribal reservation and presented a contingency fee agreement damages claim that was subsequently dismissed my client then terminated mr herman's services based on the fact that the contract was invalid under tribal law and offered to go shave a settlement my friend improperly he refused to turn my client return my client's file and instead seeks to rewrite invalid contract to store go away of immunity feeling to extort that waiver m my friend makes two premier arguments that this is not a suit implicates travel southern immunity and that it is the policy considerations direct that the implied waiver un immune from in ram actions state tax and regulatory laws waters in and the waters case this court held that so are precluded the supreme court has said time and again that it is it's not for the court to determine the limits of some unique congress has plenty to worry over tribes and tribal immunity and  regard so so the the policy arguments to extend implied waiver to attorneys means it is not an article three function and here from the united states is barred by the united states owns opportunity because the lien seeks to attach the funds in the u s treasury this morning and i'd like to focus primarily on federal i bring unity although i'm happy to entertain any questions from the  taken from the treasury of the tribe taken  is seeking an order from the court directing the government and directing the united states to pay him directly from the u s treasury and that type of order is exactly what a federal sovereign immunity person acts against and there's a long tribe are under our understanding with the tribe the money would be paid from the proceeds of pleasant if there were no proceeds there would be no courtesy that's a pure contingency fee agreement and so it was excess in expected that the money would long the counsel for the tribe suggest that somehow the waters is the same as this case and it's clearly not because in waters there was a separate claim against the government so now we're seeking here if if what the what the government wants to hold true is that any time you know money is fungible so any money that doesn't go to the tribe theoretically would go to the treasury but that doesn't make every single playing for money involving a try void because of sovereign immunity