separate reasons first of all it's just not covered by the statute because it's not seeking to enjoin the collection of a tax levied under state law in fact is that seeking to enjoin the collection of any tax and seeking to declare it unconstitutional statutes which authorized the state and the pride to enter into contracts and to declare it invalid the contract that was entered into but it's a to the extent that there's any tax involved it's a tribal think it is and of course the district court didn't ever reach that issue but you were asked and i understand they can they can raise this now because they allege that it's an independent ground upon which the district court can be a party because as this court recognized in washington versus daley a party that is present has virtually identical interest in the case and can adequately represent that party and therefore the first step is not even met they're not even a necessary party because the state of washington is a party to the states is here to defend their interests the governor is here and in fact the washington weavers you know governors come and go and sometimes you can even find out which one won the election  and why should the tribe who has a long term interest be be said to be protected by the government when the government can change its mind whenever it wants to when why don't you sit necessarily so the government cannot change its mind as to whether or not there's a statute on the books which authorizes them to enter into this contract if you can remove the statute there's lots of things that the governor can do the statute the governor cannot remove the was for many decades and then eventually the united states supreme court pretty much resolved it by saying that this is a lie if an indian retailer sells to a tribal indian the state can't collect any tax and that if an indian retailer sells to nine in the end the state can collect it and once those winds were dry i don't believe that there's been litigating in quite some time on that but you're quite correct that there was a controversy for a while think you should assume anything you should require the state of washington to carry gets burden of proving that the governor is not an adequate person to represent the tribes interests because the burden of proof is on them and in this case they have not stood up and surface anything about why they can't represent the truth and if they're hurt i mean for them to carry their burden it would be necessary for them to come in here and say a couple or a lot doesn't think he can do this because whatever whatever reason and there is nothing that they've ever said their contract says we have a mutual interest in doing this we both want to do this as we both think it will benefit our respective governments how can they carry their burden of proving that the governor can't adequately represent the pride in that situation if they would have to stand up here and say you can't trust me the governor should defend this contract well you know well i don't know much of the history of about this when you know we didn't get a lot of history  issue there is not whether the state is an adequate party to represent someone else's interests but it is a case where there is a contract between two people and one of the persons is absent and one of the persons is present the person present said he should have been able to bring this lawsuit against me because of this absent indispensable party was also part of the contract and this court said you're a party to the contract you have the exact same contractual interest in defending this contract and asserting any rights under it that the absent party has and so between the contracting parties in that case and this didn't seem to matter to this court i trust relationship is not a prerequisite and if i can go back for just one moment just whilst i just want to say again i quibble i guess with your saying why should you why should i convince you that the state of washington can be trusted that's not the burden the state of washington has the burden of proving that the state of washington cannot be local whatever so they got a lot of sales that way that they wouldn't otherwise get now that the tribe has imposed a tax which is exactly equal to what the state would impose on an onion in the is different in the sense that the united states was the present part of the state of washington convinced this court to reverse and then be dismissal because the united states was an adequate party to represent the absent private interests and first part of their necessary party not the second part whether they're an indispensable party have advanced several reasons why i don't think they're an indispensable party  competition from indian casino owners and they are not asserting public rights or trying to vindicate important public rights they were trying to eliminate competition in this case the wilbur's are trying to vindicate their in any way and really what the state of washington is trying to do in this case is do an end run around the indian commerce clause and the treaty in the state constitution what they cannot do directly they have so far was set up to prevent you may not do that unless congress has consent you may not enter into these arrangements with programs where they might give up manhattan for twenty four dollars i mean that's the that's the historical background for the whole notion of states do not treat with indian friends if you were to reach the opposite conclusion that they are an indispensable part there would be no alternative form in which th greyhound and virtually no other case that i can see in the country has ever considered the petition class argument which i have advanced and so i think that's an issue of first impression and i have steered you to the decisions of the wattles constant supreme court in  between the governor of arizona and that face and the tribes and they had taken opposite positions on the issue which i can remember what it was and therefore on the facts of that case to think of the above because you can't trust the governor of arizona to represent the tribes in this case i would also distinguish it on the petition cause argument which no court has ever addressed but that this court will i'm sure and i just ask you to consider that the ramifications if you rule for the state of washington here no court in the country can ever address whether there's a violation of federal constitutional rights going on here we have to think of the argument is phrased against that that you can always go to the trial court i think that's a brief saying we're over here on the sideline we're not in this case we're not going to get into this case and we agree with the state that you can't touch us so well i was just actually respond to the argument made by the opposition that you have the unconstitutional i mean we can't get that relief that we can't get them to enjoy a governor from doing something going to try have according to an injunction i believe a conditional injunction but they have to have jurisdiction over the people they issue it against and they can't just give an injunction against the governor of washington no no i'm not saying the governor wants to have jurisdiction of the tribe yes so there's a possibility at least the argument the opposition is correct that you could bring a declaratory relief or action directing the i don't think they have i don't think there's any way that you can make a legal argument that the tribe must consent to being sued in federal court that would go against the constitutional right of a tribe as a sovereign entity not to consent to be  i have twenty nine seconds left so if you will see them for your thank you vases and those range from six of them primarily the eleventh amendment standing with just the tax injunction act failing to name a necessary and indispensable party and of course for the state the claim upon which really can be granted  partially wrong and i'm just whining about his in lieu analysis it strikes me that that might be inconsistent with some of the cases recited by the opposition i think the problem with that is if you look at it two ways you can either look at it as is that each state has and the problem with that i think is that if you look at the language based on the statute in the contract talking about in lieu of and the fact that the state will not they could get their cigarettes free it's called the allocation of them or if they are exempt there's no sleep taxes so this issue the council raises that there is now this economic burden because tribal members would now have to  the state doesn't have the same interests and secondly we have a contract before you leave second to get second legal comeback to firstly when i press a question to your adversary he cited to me united states of america and re more wrong and of indians versus rose and i have looked that case over and i think i know what it stands for life to have you tell me your view of whether or not this buttresses his  dismissal shortly after the sports resolution of the first of feel therefore miller's voluntary dismissal indicates that miller himself than i feel that it was necessarily in his interest to remain a partner in this action between the state and tried is illegal that's what they're saying i mean if you boil it down to the fundamental number of it it is they don't like the fact of the contract and if they don't like the contract they can go before the trial and i offered they could go before five a court they could talk about the interest of the drive injured into the contract that's their remedy if they want to talk about their dissatisfaction of why the tribe entered into it but as it is and have a cause of action saratoga from new york why are those cases different because in those cases the parties challenging that they were challenging the undermine authority of the governor to enter into those agreements and that it was appropriate in state court because they said this governor did not have that authority to enter into those agreements and both of those cases are limited to that that's not the issue here what they are trying to gin up if you will some kind of to avoid further in force with the actions of tribes of retailers on tribal reservations in our police in the state taxes and here's one that they came up with and said if the drive in is into an agreement with not have an interest in seeing that it's tribal retailers or retailers on its reservation would have an economic disadvantage because unlike in the state of washington outside the reservation retailers are only s don't have the tribal taxes and the state taxes so there'd be no incentive economic practicality for the trying to enter into any agreement in the last somebody says look you only really have one task and so that's why the tr so i also take exception to the fact that we have to prove that we're unreliable the state doesn't of the states not can come before you and say that based on the burden of necessary and indispensable party that we are unreliable to grievance there's there's nothing that the they still have an ability to petition for a grievance and that's before the five or so that that issue i think it is resolved in that respect and so that the issue of this court is already left with then is just the officials and then you have the issue of standing whether they can challenge that and i think when you through go through it you'll find that they don't and the facts in junction act relating to any of the taxes can be stricken and that's why this tax injunction act with far the most specific claims we think there are sufficient sufficient basis that this court can find based on instruments out of these of the military reservations so there is a claim that's failed as an example of failing to state clearly so by the time you boil this down there is no case that they have that should be here in federal court there solve this problem this is that bothersome usually you know we have all these things in the cases any time there's a right there must be an ability to exercise the right is that should there be a concern to us also said that is it's unfortunate that that's because you have to sovereign nations so you can't sue within federal court however i think you don't have to reach that issue in that respect i do think there is a relief and that is because they are they may not have to bring the state in there but they can go before the tribal court they have another alternative form they can go before there and political process the five ok and they can talk to them about why they they disagree with what the tribe is doing so there language whereas the mutual interests of the one almost cried when the state of washington brought these two governments together to pursue their common interest they're doing this all they have said is we don't have a trust relationship