not that we wouldn't like to hear you argue all day but you've had a long morning slash afternoon is like a bit we did one that we're going to think it's really really inconvenient but now i think we to a certainty that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any stated facts that could be proved so let's look at the complaint the plaintiffs allege the quest discriminated against them from one thousand nine hundred seventy to two thousand and two what revealed the discrimination when it became apparent from the filings the rates were in some cases less than half the rate then for the five year period during which question discriminated against the plaintiffs well the other thing that troubles me is the interpretation cannot say that is because of section two seventy six which is the basis for their refund order to begin with because congress prohibited discrimination against the plaintiffs by questions from april if you look at our complaint we plead both the refund order as well as sections two of seventy two seventy six and we plead that we are discriminated against the reason that they're very kind of the same thing is because the refund order only  state rates and you know the f c c dispensed with that but they are also arguing basically there are going we can set whatever rate we want and that was the basis for self certification and the f c c says no you can't set whatever rate you want it needs to be cost if you really want to drill down i think there's some serious questions as to whether or not the states couldn't force the f c c to order a lot of states pass but you could run into problems whereas we have a clear remedy here because there's been a violation  we do think that the federal courts should interpret the f c c refund or but there is also the direct claim under section two seventy sixty two also for damages and under that theory i think will presented to the they can't allow their own on the fact that they didn't comply for five years rather than forty five days like they were ordered to do they can allow that created a defense to a damage claim when congress expressly said you need to stop discriminating on well i think the way they try to avoid the question you're putting they walkies all the statute of limitations problem the severe one which you all were touching on that is there are defense today is will there are going to day as well because never mention wisconsin or you know that it's it's really you know you could pull it out of a couple sentences of a complaint in parts but not in whole and it's really kind of a renewed suspicion about how to look at  expert testimony we prove that potentially i mean a really a couple of ways we prove that the best evidence we've got we think is question only admissions and the fact that when they further the first time they go to a state after developed after discovery question own admission really are the key to that when when they come in and say these various comply and they hadn't done that previously this gets to the question of whether or not he did have to file something really we don't see how equitably they can create a sense that this had to have been done by state commissions when they were the ones that had the charge to do so failed to do it that they're very thing that they didn't do that we contend cause the violation of two seventy six somehow creates a defense for them so i would if i could have just another minute i would like to try to wrap up with address a couple things very quickly the argument that quote that question makes that the f c c changed the law caught law did not change in two thousand and two what changed was qwest finally get exhausted their efforts to avoid the law secondly just briefly on the statute of limitations section two of seven of the communications act says any person claiming to be damaged by any