position that that's where they should remain our position is not based on religion it's not based on equities it's not based on social policy just based on the rule of law and it's that i would like to address the district court found that with c j i the plaintiff here did not exist before eighteen in ninety three it not only had possession of the  tags the tickets the nomenclature that was being used didn't always fit perfectly because the relationships of these two little relationships were created before some of these legal concepts and we were concerned about having the lost a federal court case surrendered the premises and the first question is did these two parties have the authority to enter into a settlement agreement and should the court now respect that settlement agreement and enforce it rather than saying well because they're religious institutions we can overlook this a little bit the language of the the  when the congregations in rhode island were fighting with each other and excluded each other sharing israel stepped in we said no we said we're only going to allow this place to continue as is everyone is allowed c i wanting to be that big the caretaker wanting to be a congregation that was going to say agreed that it would income be the place and the paraphernalia and the first legal error of the district court that i want this court's attention because he never interpreted those words he should have enforced those words we cited cases from that time period everyone would paraphernalia meant when you were dealing with a agreeing to surrender the possession of the building the premises and the paraphernalia and then there was a public surrender ceremony the changes were given to share israel it was locked c j i had no access to the that the parties agree to follow your client's ritual practices and they would like to decide this case on that narrow ground i take it you have dollar for the release has been paid since the nineteen fifties and there's been a degree of independence since then so i mean this is implicit in their as ours i think it's another faecal ever think the ritual to the mode of ritual has been in in vis relationship since the beginning we have been a benevolent word some people up there over the set over the decades think we do too much and something we do too little we step in when there are ritual issues to be addressed selinda reminding is a ritual violation they agreed not as a matter of religion but as a matter of fact to follow the rites rituals and customs of sherry israel in new york and that is the same ritual as the colonial city got fat followed and that prohibits the sale of these the district court wouldn't allow us to put that proof on fearing opening a pandora's box so when they want it that way when the people there wanted to use the burial spot the cemetery in a way that was property i take it you're not arguing that we should influence it because you're of israel is coming to a correct dark trying to a conclusion correct your honor it's a question it's a question of power not d so he was going to get rid of those and and he did now that the legal error there was to have was to have found no means no new room doing by sheriff israel sufficient to to remove us as trustee not only to say there's nothing in the record the district court has specifically found that we discharged our obligations and you are arguing that not have been removed as trustee and c j i should not have been appointed as trustee in a proceeding where the attorney general wasn't a party where there was no notice given that any of this was happening c g i itself said that they were completing subsequent proceedings before any of this happened the point i was i was then making toronto was was that having found that we carried out our obligations as trustee by releasing the building to them  hundred forty five agreement with the federal government like the two thousand and one agreement doesn't talk about both dalin of religious belief but  part of this jewish heritage that the district court finds they have been a part of for two hundred fifty years in two thousand and one agreement the council may have may have misspoken there's a civic reference not just to the property but to protecting and conserving the related collections and at trial we get it that the related collections include the remaining the court already so that the form book the word paraphernalia was specifically written in and the district court never found as a fact that c j i did not intend to include personalty what he says is that there was no evidence of its intent but there was evidence of shared israel's intent even if the court were to go beyond the plain language of the agreement it says paraphernalia he cited the cases from that period that i think everybody knows what telling you it's part of this deal we're going to keep it as part of it that should be respected by the courts and that should be enforced by the courts it doesn't have anything to do with what what religious background or religious law is behind it the question is you know we knew the value of these by the way wasn't the one the one valuable thing in one thousand and three and they knew that they were religious articles and they weren't going to be sold and so the idea of putting a value on that was is foreign to those