was abandoned in total in one hundred and fifty eight i think that this fact alone provides two ways to grant or lease of the requested by the state and condensed once and for all to any possible plan by the government on the state judicial decree but there's no time limit on it either so is long as it's been abandoned then the time limit of getting to just the creed doesn't matter and even if that occurs after nine hundred and eighty eight so the district court didn't even address the king hadn't done anything in the preceding sixty six years i'm not sure why the government should be assumed to be leaving that offer on the table even as it's changed its policy direction why do you say the nine hundred and eighty eight act didn't hold back whatever offer might and is not a two for two point process like king county court found then the court can still give this can grant the finnigan their land simply by saying that this was one unified abandonment and the supreme the the bennetts decision said the right away it didn't it didn't specify any one particular parcel is abandoned but it didn't specify who went for the particular parcel so it was a court of competent jurisdiction over that area perhaps but i look at the your dreams floatation of the complaint from bennett and it makes the civic reverence said land said land said land being the legal description of then it's real property on its face that action doesn't seem to speak directly to any property other than mr ben problem which is ok they were well intended i'm not saying they were malicious about it but that the united states was a party to the proceeding i'm not sure how we can say today that this is an adjudication ought to extend which the interest of the united suggesting in his comments the history matters here and having a sense of the sequence of things that that unfolded here is important because it helps us understand exactly what congress is up to with these the acts that we're talking about statute that we're talking about and sixty four they granted this right away to northern pacific in the according to the townsend case in one thousand or three the supreme court said that was a limited with the right of or going to united states so as long as that right of way was being used for railroad realized the mileage of the railroad rights of way available is rapidly diminishing and they understand now that this is an important asset in terms of recreational opportunities and in terms of possibly reactivating these rail lines in the future so at that point they change the dynamic of the river goes they with the united states right  landowner goes in and confirms abandonment and one where they do not so there's definitely some some difficulty in terms of the of the semantics involved here  well the v i think that's correct the short answer your question is yes i think probably it's helps to refute the plaintiff's position in this case that they use that term twice in a year your honor to the contrary of plaintiffs interpretation that congress had this intent to convert what was universally understood in section one hundred and twelve dollars to be a two part definition into a one part definition makes more sense here that when they say remains there last this new procedure was followed after nineteen games are just i don't know it seems like there is that is being made more complicated than it needs to be and i may be oversimplifying  now and you still hear me then then it goes to the adjoining landowner sorry about that my computer just went to sleep if if if however nine hundred and eighty eight comes and confirmation is the process used to require best transfer to the private owners intra i overdid doesn't sit on top of nine hundred and twelve they sit side by side both contain the public highway before them and that's why henri man the business said no figure out what's going on here with you know when when there's a confirmation so to say that it's not a two part process is is is basically to say that what the with the district  road of which about probably four and a half for now and have ever needed to be judicially determine because the rest went underwater and this is the last bit this is the last and before it goes underwater this small piece of property well we want this land now these four unsophisticated people are being taken advantage of by the government and it's johnny come lately thing where they for every higher title action and in this one had said we don't want that land so it's a small bit of land that can be used for nothing else except basically these people home and it is simply a substantial matter of fairness it makes no sense at all for the government to simply claim it now and when there's  square it's where they live it's a small parcel of next to the reservoir where their houses are so there's a there's a couple of th right no no the houses in the right away so that if you look at the opening opening brief you know there's a blow up picture garden items there and you know that they use it to access the rest of their land i mean they manage it as if it was there and i didn't act the rest of their land because i look at this  like mean right of ways on the side and the government now saying it's part of the national forest i don't see anything that's their land on the other side of the right of way that's river ice ok i see what you mean  where you go you're saying is that the land that is on the north side of the road is separate from what you would consider their property well what's that being used for it looks like that's the river bank