you are who is a member of the bar and good standing in the highest courts california and the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit i have knowledge of her credentials and satisfy that she confesses the necessary qualifications and i'd just like to add a person on the road that these this is once again one of those bittersweet moment where we're honoring one of our clerks but coinciding with the sat that that we have to recognize that she's leading sooner rather than later on and i'd just like to say on a personal note with an absolute pleasure it's been to have her with us and what a contribution she's made on a personal level and i'm a professional reference for the work we do in court and it's sixteen at least those are renewable but the secretary of the interior can adjust the royalty rate by nine hundred thirty eight actually says are held by production with no opportunity to adjust the royalty the government has admitted that can conversions redone contrary to law without competitive bidding the lower court acknowledges that the government may have misled the tribes by providing an adequate information the government has admitted it never advised the tribes about the possibility of lost royalty revenue during renewal periods there's also no question that the conversions ultimately lead to loss of tens of millions of dollars lost or else use that they would have achieved under how to convert at least to try to claim is not part because their claim doesn't accrue for limitations purposes until the tribes either snotty who was attorney for the tribes or one of the tribes at that time was looking into an unrelated issue actually the opposite issue there were unproductive leases that that oil companies were sitting on holding an inventory not developing and not paying any royalties the trial mr sanaa skew was concerned that the government was not in requiring the companies to go forward with their obligation to develop diligently and see exactly opposite problem and  here we had productive leases these converted leases were productive reasons and to say that when you look into one kind of breach of mismanagement to say you're automatically on notice of the exact opposite i'm mismanagement at least believed that the letters were in think it a understanding of the differences between the two cases and that therefore it would have triggered and happened right you're on your honor i mean it's clear from the record skeete did not have actual knowledge of those leases and he was looking into a particular problem that the tribes were complaining about and to and that was unproductive leases to say that he should have been on notice to look into productive lease well lawyers deal with problems and the problem was unproductive at least the problem today is is the opposite of those reasons were productive at the time and they would be no reason for a lawyer to waste his client's money by looking into a non problem at that time would be sure to stand point yet no actual knowledge it was an excellent attorney i think if you didn't have knowledge of it i don't think anyone and even the government and its brief that from its standpoint it doesn't see why there was any and this was an unstated clearly by the supreme court recently but we believe that's always been the case we think that it's been quite recently that the camera can use to tell an interesting scene i believe so yes your honor at least that you can look to the to the common law to to common law doctrine going back to england so it was an unusual situation where they were dressing in terms of i mean the courts have said that this is that there is a strong cross it's a sacred trust  michel that it's just i mean there are aspects of the common law it's certainly special because united states has a special relationship with the with the tribes but it has all kinds of other sovereign responsibilities and we understand that  concerned that there must be some clear basis for the trust in the statutes i think you can look to the common law certainly if the common law is inconsistent with the special sovereign responsibility of the united states that's one thing here where we don't see that quoting from well the power existing in congress to administer upon and guard tribal property in the political and ministry in its nature the manner of its exercise as a question within the province of the legislative branch to determine now what we had here in one thousand sixteen at very clear the government violating it admitted in one nine hundred thirty eight act very clear that it requires public bidding and he says the government violating that trust relationship between the united states and the indian people and they quote mitchell too which is one of the primary cases that we rely on that's the one where it tried to temper its cut government didn't seventy nine nine hundred eighty two there were scandals about how badly the government is keeping its records on indian oil and gas and led to a report called the limo's report and as a result of the windows or the mineral management service was established and the government has done a much better job since the mineral management was established by that in those days before that you could get this kind of information from the government but wh it starts with the the end did not end of course act which says indian land cannot be sold or at least without the approval of the united states then the nine hundred thirty eight act which says very specifically that if you wanted to administer plaintiff's mineral estate and collect royalties the government must remove trespassers and take oil or gas illegally two years later cherokee to ninety nine to this court has regulations and the duty is given to the united states and supervise the production of oil and gas all of which is very clear and you know it recognizes that in her prior decision that there is a money and similar materials that have been supplemented by additional discovery also in two thousand and seven the party shared expert porch where both sides did express that discussion all you claim to and calculations that's where the information and claim to came from we didn't know about it at all and to say that we should have known about it with the kind of record keeping the government was doing and where there was no  is because of the way they and because of wellington asked for employment relief the entire theory that they put forward is the nine hundred fifteen at least they should have remained in effect they should not have been terminated and non renewal the royalty should have been great and they would like to voted for it they enacted tribal resolutions requesting this and they signed releases so i'll have the material that all of the actions that ever occurred happened in one nine hundred fifty and everybody knew about them making mistakes that he didn't personally know that give us but we're talking of limitations probably if it assuming there were no leases and the government had an obligation under the statute then you've got a continuing by lation under southern pacific under bunch bunch if the court is going to decide right and of course one of think they would have been to situation is as supreme court has repeatedly required identify a specific statutory and regular trait duty to remove trespassers and hasn't happened even though they've been informed that we need to happen we've never identif bidding and that there should have been yes that happened i happened with the full knowledge of everybody involved at the time it was a mistake it turns out to have been a harmless mistake and it is not a mistake that does not affect claim when we don't know whether it's harmless or not  it's these cables eight eight to thirty eight thirty one but the point is that their expert calculated what he thinks they should have earned and what they gave and those are exactly the same until nine hundred sixty eight and so the evidence from been all fine and ten years later the government actually wrote letters to that and told an oil on the yacht if you want to switch in one hundred thirty eight act you've got terminate sixteen act and then put this up public betty roy because if producing property had been put on a public bit other oil companies would have bid on that and they might have been much higher royalties and very big bonuses to get properly