morning running please the court my name is mark and with the american civil liberties union of michigan and the a c l u of michigan along with a law firm of edwards and jennings and other concerned law firms and organizations represent the opponents in this matter this case is one that has great potential consequences for tens of thousands of people many of them poor many of them sick and one of the great difficulties that they have faced is a misunderstanding both in the public and in the courts of exactly what their interests are they are not asking that they be given special privileges in terms of payment they're not asking for free water they're not asking for anything all that they're asking for is fairness and that's something that has been denied that they seek damages in this case they seek declar continue when it comes to the name plaintiffs is the water been turned on in some cases in some cases not just as far as i know but i don't know specifically but i do know that the claims that they brought to the court present issues which are still active and viable claims for the class members that they represent i'm just trying to figure that out that's all i want to know so just then and maybe this is one of those things because i don't think the city's pushed this point so it's not your responsibility that you didn't think to have all these answers but it would be relevant to me to know whether the class members have the water i mean this is me then name class representatives have the water turned on and what is it that they're still seeking relief for because if i was just tell you my theory is that if all you're worried about is that they might turn the water off again you know that's a lion's case and that's not enough to solve the moon this problem and  the second thing i'm curious about is whether the nature of the water plan in terms of how it works and what you do with people that can't pay has changed since the lawsuit was filed and so those are some of the issues i have and if you have answers great if not we can ask for briefing later the primary response that i have your honor is that this case is before the court a motion based on rule twelve b six the sufficiency of the complaint and we are prepared to  the issues regarding that and as to that question as to whether the complaint was properly put and whether there was ever below we say that it was properly pled because it explains in appropriate detail the problems that there have been experienced by the point as a by the appellants they've been denied fairness in two respects one with respect to due process and the bankruptcy court below identified paragraph one twenty four as the primary deficiency in the in that court's view of the complaint with respect to due process the court described it as kitchens and everything but the kitchen sink list of legal conclusions in fact although it list a number of legal conclusions in other parts of the complaint the facts backing up those conclusions are specified in great detail specifically with respect to the allegation that there has been a failure to provide notice and opportunities for hearings plain language prohibit the granting of the early that you seek so you say you believe the fourteenth amendment overrides what we have that we have to look at the extra language of the statute we believe that the supreme court case i think it's addison which declared the prior version of the discipline bankruptcy provisions unconstitutional is based upon the federalism concerns contention that the consul how do you reconcile addison with your argument that the constitution overrides the anti injunctive relief provision of nine off four when the supreme court has already said that constitutional provisions are in conflict the supreme court's already ruled as a federalism and still on issues constitutional and unconstitutional section nine zero four itself says that the bankruptcy court can assume jurisdiction in cases where there's an executor or a contract in cases where the debtor has consented to jurisdiction and in cases where non court issues are related to the bankruptcy we say that as to all of those things both the constitutional and the non constitutional issues are addressed by b because of consent she said consent where's the consent here how did that enter in that he did consent to this when the city filed for bankruptcy in its second the meant plan of adjustment there's language in there that talks specifically about the kinds of issues that are addressed in this litigation in terms of rate structures and affordability and other things that we talk about and weak but it is it is clear from that language that they are consenting to those kinds of issues being addressed certainly the issues that are raised in all of the claims made by the reserve i mean is this an inference or is it just straight up language that says we consent to the bankruptcy courts authority to decide when the water shut off or not shut off no it does not say it in those words it does say that it does consent to the bankruptcy court considering issues of the kind that are raised in this litigation another way of saying they filed for bankruptcy and i just think you're saying it's a constructive consent when they file for bankruptcy because of course they're going to action lots of issues related to bankruptcy that one one things related to another it's relate to this issue with respect to executive or a contract this is the agreements that are interesting too between water customers and utility are executor of contracts they are subject to bankruptcy all of these issues are related to the bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over them and that is essentially the case and in terms of do premier main arguments consent is that the main argument all three execut contract consent and related to it's not here argued implied consent there's no express consent here is there but didn't you say that there was no it's no express rejection on a section three sixty five so one of the bankruptcy code  contract which are governed by section three sixty five of the bankruptcy code right that there was no rejection of these contracts and so if there's no rejection then they automatically and so that's where you get your consent that's correct thank you and as i was saying with respect to the due process claims and i know time is short but if you look at all of them you can see situations where people were given notice on the day are in the water was shut off days when situations where people were provided with notice that the water was going to be cut off on one day and it was cut off two days earlier situations where people were engaged in active disputes trying to get some type of relief and just as in memphis like where there was no opportunity for them to resolve those disputes water was shut off that got your question i'm just trying to find out how nine of four works as you can probably tell we're interested in that i mean let's just say you're wrong about nine of four that just by its terms it just applies to all these claims constitutional or not why is that so problematic i mean couldn't nine afford just relates to bankruptcy judges so why wouldn't an answer be and it doesn't help this case but it helps the next case why wouldn't the answer be you can raise the claim in bankruptcy court you can ask the bankruptcy judge for a recommendation as to how to resolve it but ultimately it's a district court judge that resolves these issues with that i don't understand why that would undercut your client's concerns because you still get a judge to get an article three judge in fact to decide whether there was a due process violation for precisely that reason that i continue to say that the issue here really goes to the reason that the cases before the court which is the sufficiency of the pleadings and whether it's an article three court or whether it's in bankruptcy court the question before the court is whether the the pleadings are sufficient and we say that they are they are because if you look even with respect to the equal case are talking but you chose to file this in bankruptcy court and what i'm suggesting is that's a problem with nine zero four and what i'm saying is not that many bad consequences will follow from that if next time around you go to the district court judge for this it's actually what's so bad about that and we have to decide this case but i'm also trying to address the problems you're articulating that it seems like there ought to be a place to bring a constitutional claim i'm suggesting what that places and i'm asking you why is that so problematic it may or it may not be but for the record it is important to establish here and now that these pleadings are sufficient because whether they're filed in the bankruptcy court or whether they are found in the district court it is important to determine whether the motion which was brought before the court and which was decided based on insufficiency of the pleadings whether in fact that was the case though so you're saying that right now that we're getting ahead because we need to be we need to back up and just look at the standard whether this meets the sufficiency standard exactly that's the question we need to examine your just on the cost and and and you say that you disagree that the complaint is just filled with conclusory statements that there are sufficient possible facts articulated that would allow that that should allow your been a tempting to do and we can go back and talk about this as the due process issue as i said goes on walker at pitt paragraph forty seven was given notice that shut off the current june fourteenth shut off operations began on june twelfth in adequate notice to shut us in in the case of inadequate opportunities to contention last paragraph forty two shows that nicole hill is being charged not only for water in her current residence but also for a house she no longer occupied her water was shut off while she was engaged in a year long effort to try and talk to somebody about whether this was going to be whether these bills were justified and those are those are factual statements but i want to take you back to the question that judge sutton ask you earlier and he said  that all of the named plaintiffs and they have all of the main plaintiffs received you know their had their water turned back on it we have to look at whether or not this is even moved us to decide that other issues so what do you say to that is it doesn't matter representatives they are anus either i believe i believe there are ten ok do you know whether the ten are getting water now i do not know as i stand here whether they are or not because their situations change from time to time because  because you've asked exclusively for injunctive relief which section nine of four appears to prohibit yes because that's that's the legal question that is before us to all these six  yes ok and b and what's your bet what's your best authority that despite the language of the statute and the intent of congress to prohibit the bankruptcy court from issuing  that the cost to shall provision not the federalism provision but the other ones of equal protection and due process trump the statute what's your best authority that that that is how it  works you had a question that i did not complete an answer to which was whether this is still a viable claim it's not if you don't have a viable remedy read plato you know but i'm trying to explain that we do and the reason is that the question is whether these were sufficiently put it is presented as a class action and they are presented as class representatives which presumes that there are many people who are in their circumstances so if in fact their claims as individuals have been mooted out then their individual claims and whether they can continue is class representatives whether they represent a case so i don't know is there i don't have a reason i think you're answering this question i don't have the complaint in front of me but let's just say this is what it says the relief we want is for the bankruptcy it's explicitly says we want the bankruptcy judge is to turn this water back on let's just say that's all the complaint says judge christians question is that nine o four does not allow that relief and if that hypothetically is the only relief sought you've got a twelve b six problem well your honor i've answered the question in with the only answer that i have which is that as whether as to this being a case involving executive or a contracts whether they're being consent and whether these cases being related to the bankruptcy all give the court jurisdiction to do the things that we've asked them to do and that is my answer tach atory construction argument that there is an exception to this statute that the more important issue is the constitutional issue whether the constitutional provisions override statute and you have any authority that they do ironically judge rhodes in the bankruptcy court in this case if nothing else because here you judge rhodes opinion here ok do you have any other thorny than the bankruptcy opinion in this case as i stand here no i don't your honor because and that does  there for the same concerns of of federalism restricted the power of the federal courts even in constitutional areas to not adjudicate constitutional claims a decision wasn't clear it would not clearly on reasonable i mean congress has acted in other areas that have restricted constitution all rights because of because of federal m i don't really see you having any authority that this would would be prohibited well your honor all that i can do is to request opportunity to supplement  hear from the other side and you'll be able to respond to any of these questions you've already heard and it sounds like you've got some other thoughts but the red lights been on for a while but i do want to because i did not get to the issue of equal protection which is very much a part of the challenge ok you might start starting with the most issue just tell us and then again if you're not prepared to answer it's best to tell us that right out of the box because we can just ask for supplemental briefing but i'm just struggling with why this i mean most people would think this bankruptcy case is over right the train's left the station people are moving on and here we have this follow up case so why is it still a lot of dispute thank you and marsh wants in on behalf of the city to try as the bankruptcy court found on page twenty one of its opinion none of the plaintiffs are currently with water and that opinion was issued approximately two years ago and the plainest that's referring to the ten name plaintiffs on the issue yes none of the plaintiffs none of the plaintiffs i think that's clear  none of the name plaintiffs are currently without water service all those did experience service interruptions in the past that was it your position and your client's position the case is moot i believe your honour's raised a very good issue that is if they're not without water than constitutionally moot because if it's constitutionally moot than the court doesn't have jurisdiction in the first instance and i believe there are six or should we do that in this case or not i think you should i think you should if you know the ice if you would argue that that by all of a sudden turn the water back on for those tenants ok so where we move we don't you know and i'm not saying that happened in this case that well i guess one that i didn't happen in this case and second  i don't know if i want to go down this road that much but i mean the exception of moving us is if the controversy is likely to reoccur to avoid judicial review and i think that's kind of what we're talking about good in the city just turned out water well that would be the terminations of the water to the point of the city during the summer of two thousand and fourteen drastically changed its policy ok so the policies but jake just to make sure i'm understanding the cause of the initial problem that grow out of the bankruptcy so it's a bankruptcy first then water shut off a second i'm not sure i understand the question i mean the say hi to her here i'm trying to get at the how likely this is of repeating itself is what i'm trying to get out or not understand and my sense of the case is that it was the bankruptcy that triggered the initial policy and i would like to think that detroit bankruptcies don't happen very often in fact city bankruptcies are almost unprecedented so the question is how connected was the bankruptcy to the water shut off and i thought they were intimately connected i think your honor is right i mean as part of the bankruptcy the city was so this is another question though that relates to move this is one of the things they were challenging was putting in place a water affordability plan one that paid attention to the income levels of the citizens and so forth and the code the way that is whether the plane is changed or not in other words if the plan in existence when they sued is now a different plan that supports moving this because we're now litigating something that's come and gone if it's the exact same plan that provides some support for the idea of let's go ahead resolve it i don't know which the answer is answer is that there were several plans that were created on or around the time that's lawsuit was filed as the court may be aware during the hearing on the planet request for a temporary restraining order the city presented a substantial amount of testimony on the changes that were made including the city's ten point plan and the ten point plan was say at a minimum we're going to give you a chance to brief and both sides and moodiness because and the point i was going to make that leap isn't a question but even that argument doesn't that get us a yawn the threshold question of whether or not we have section nine zero four of the bankruptcy code which prohibits us from even getting into the vault wobblies standard and as your honour's correctly noted this is a very broad mandate very very broad mandate and the bankruptcy court only carved out two pieces from this mandate it said that it could consider equal protection so why why was it right about that member trying to figure out how you come up protection and due process clause of the us constitution so i believe when when when the bank to court was carving out these two claims it was only with respect to the declaratory really sought but what the court did is it only considered section nine hundred four one nine zero four one provides that the court may not issue any order which would interfere with a governmental power of the city and so what the is that it's not a governmental power if it's a constitutional violation and thus nine zero for one doesn't apply but what the court didn't do importantly is look at section nine zero four two or nine zero four three so nine  structured notwithstanding any power the court unless the debtor consents or the plan so provides the court may not by any stay order or decree in the case or otherwise interfere with one any of the political or governmental powers of the four three the city's position is that of course a declaratory judgment that the city was violating the constitution filing the due process clause violated the equal protection clause would interfere with the city's property or we argued and are arguing that nine zero four would prohibit any even constitutional claims even so what's the answer to the problem you know just the egregious people of one race get water but people of another race don't was the answer that they go to district court and get an injunction that way and just challenge the action in that setting is that how this works or what or is it or do you still go to the bankruptcy court answer is a form is not the bankruptcy court you go to district court you could go to or in a state court form but you can't go to the bankruptcy court because nine zero four perhaps it's the bankruptcy court from ordering this release their authority for the the economy we just talked about there's there are no cases which would support the position that constitutional claims are carved up from the fore i haven't seen any there are plenty of cases which state that talk about the broad sweep of nine of four although i don't think there are any which specifically address  constitutional claims but each court each decision that i've read where a a a doubter made an argument then i know for brevity of the bankruptcy courts authority they've they've won because it's so incredibly broad no order n stain or decree in a few interfere with any of the property or revenues of the debt or any of the powers of the debtor does anyone say that and i know for what should happen is the bankruptcy because it is a bank this was a bankruptcy related case so in that sense it made sense for judge rhodes to have it does anyone say well what should happen is the judge should an issue these kinds of relief but he can make recommendations i don't even said that i don't think anyone said that and i think your your hono think a report a recommendation you know would rise to that level and i don't think the bank reporting recommendation counts as a stay order to create it has no power well to the extent it has absolutely no power then i suppose not that i don't have any authority to do anything other than enter into clear tory judgment on these two counts and our point is a declaratory judgment will interfere with the property or revenues of the daughter or if it's completely ineffectual then there's no case for controversy to begin with right so nine zero four would prohibit any of the relief sought by the plaintiffs including the declaratory count i'm asking you for a little more candor than most lawyers provide so if you don't want to do it don't but curiosity if this case just went away today what's your sense of either the name plaintiffs or the class members what would they feel about the way detroit's allocating water and making people pay for it would do you think there's still be a people that would want to sue what your sense of the extent to which there still would be complaints your honor at no ass ring with all candor i don't have a good sense for that other than to say that in response to this th city employment in its its ten point plan and has made substantial efforts to reach out to people and as as a temporary restraining order transcript will show the amount of water shut off as soon as the city implemented its ten point plan they they were cut in half i mean it made a lot of progress a result you know a lot of attention given to this issue a lot of money raised and a lot of new programs that were implemented to to help address this issue and it's been an issue that you know the city cares deeply about and has actually that's a benefit of calling in to the extent there still are people whose water is getting set off they have no reason to go to bankruptcy court at this point it would clearly go to district court they could write i mean that would be the only place you would go there's not a bankrupt sue the city in federal court and this would all be gone i believe that's correct donald asked about whether there were the phrasing of the various causes in the complaint the phrasing of the various clauses and complaint now what counsel read to us pretty statements well the complaint alleges little or nothing about what was provided to the plaintiffs in the bills and the shutoff notices it's never been disputed that all of the plaintiffs received bills in this case and it's never been disputed that the bill show the amount do they show the due date they describe the consequences for playing for a failing that you know you're saying is all summary judgement stuff i mean i think it's pretty easy to do satisfy a possibility in a water cut off case in the allegation to process they say reading get notice they have no right to do this they're treating people that are poor some people are rich they came they claim gets beyond twenty six well and that's what they have a lot more than i just said the difference is here is that both the bankruptcy court and the district court view the bills which were incorporated by reference into the complaint and looked at what those bill showed and the test here is whether the process i was afforded to the plaintiffs pursuant to the bills and the shut off notices satisfy due process and as this court and the supreme court has held there's two requirements essentially for procedural due process notice there's no question that there was notice here you have a bill which shows the amount due the due date the consequences the ability to dispute the bill and you have about equal protection w resolve equal protection claims on the record there's at as this court has held and as others the plaintiffs have to negative every conceivable basis which one which could support a rational basis here the plaintiffs have not negative one basis much less every base is the only but but tell me what what differentiates the differential treatment between individual customers and commercial customers in terms of the shut up procedures that the employees well that are that's one of the arguments there were a number of bases that were set forth by the bankruptcy court and district court one about  commercial customers having more complex service disconnections for commercial customers a service disconnections are much larger than they are for residential cost but for residential customer who's on dialysis i mean a service disconnection could mean they're right so i mean it's all perspective it is but i don't believe that that point goes to equal protection i mean it's as this court now is equal protection plex  e well there's two points one is first the plaintiffs have to compare themselves to similarly situated individuals they did not compare themselves to similarly situated individuals they compare themselves to businesses as a found there's never been a case which as an equal protection claim an individual can compare itself to a business or business can compare itself to an individual to get by in answer to judge thomas question she gave you two options she said one was plausibility of the equal protection due process claim the other one was the relief sought which is judge griffin's earlier question why why are you not arguing that and other words it's implausible to get this relief given the no four is that because you agree with the judge rhodes constitutional exception decision or what's wrong with judge griffin's point that it's implausible because you've only got one type of relief the bankruptcy judge stopping this and i know for says no to that that's the goal and of story we agree with that and we also that's not how you hit your child's question i apologize we agree with that point and we also do not believe that the meeting the standard of it falling twamley so an equal protection you have to have a ten how how are they going to establish the intent without some discovery well as part of the pleading stage as this not get past the clear pleading standards that a plaintiff in a rational basis equal protection count must now you have all conceivable basis that could support the justification seems to me that a rational environment in which the parties can come in and adjudicate these different things and make adjustments so that the debtor can emerge from bankruptcy you know free to sort of in a better position to succeed going forward and the kind of thing that you don't want to have a zillion of these different claims that are coming up you know that that would really impede the deadest progress so here it seems like to provide these kinds of things won't we curry now i know that in the in the biz you always got people who can't pay their bills and people who say don't shut me up but what is that what is the policy now that it's different than when i  that's going on this likely to keep these from occurring certainly and we as a as a quick aside on your executive or a contract point as a bankruptcy court found these are not executive ory contracts when the city sends a bill and and provide service that's not an executor or a contract that's just what michigan law provides it's own willing to pay for the water i'm going to provide the water so so we dispute that that there's any executive ory contract and in this case to the heart of your question though what what has changed and as part of the that was one of the questions that the bankruptcy court asked a city and the bankruptcy court had two days of testimony on that point because the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and want the city called witnesses at that hearing and went through with the bankruptcy court in great detail if its ten point plan for addressing water shutoff and these included greater access to the water department longer hours you know cutting red tape more plans were in place to help people pay for their bills prior to this case a person a customer had to put down thirty percent of their bill to get into a payment plan after they only have to put ten percent of this ten point plan is a thing that has changed yes yes and it appears at record  thirty eight a page id's it was not before the bankruptcy court oh it was before the bankruptcy so it assessed the validity of the ten point it did it called a bold commendable and necessarily aggressive but i mean i guess i'm just trying to make sure i'm following what happened here the complaint didn't challenge the template plan because the template plan came later that's correct so just in terms of gathering evidence while a bankruptcy judge with a disk or judge said well and no need to worry because they've got this awesome new plan well what the bankruptcy court said as part of it injunction hearing it assessed for traditional factors and the city introduced evidence of what it was doing to address these issues as as part of that hearing ok i think we've heard we've gone well over your time so but thank you for thank you so much first of all i just want to quickly address the issue with rudeness one fact that has to be observed about the complaint itself is that in addition to these individual plaintiffs they're also  michigan welfare rights organization among others continues to work with them with any number of people who are going through these same problems fact these shots are still continuing in the thousands it is an active an ongoing problem for many many poor people in this city fact the ten point plan is something else the quick observer which is something that arose and i would you agree with me if i fall that's true and we're going to let briefing happen on the and if it's mowed what ends up happening is the lower court decisions get vacated that's a benefit to you and if as you say the current ten point plan isn't working and thousands of people's water is getting shut off unfairly irrationally and so forth then you go straight to district court and of course done we simplified everything and we happen to be challenging the current plan which i am struggling with why that's a problem and the decisions you don't like a bit vacated it may or may not be a problem your honor but you know as i said a number of times we are stuck with what we have when is when when when the potential defendant isn't bankruptcy you go to the bankruptcy court to sue them which is what we did and what brings this before the court is a twelve b six motion and what has happened throughout the life of this case is the confusion between the pleadings and that particular motion and all kinds of other things that are happening the ten point plan has nothing to do with this litigation other than what advocacy groups and you know extra you know other things that have been going out on outside of the court produce nothing to do with it because it wasn't what was challenged it was it was not and it wasn't part of the litigation it's something that was done as a stopgap measure something that was done that's not that doesn't relate to the complaint that was made and the other thing is that the the court i'm i'm struggling with why mootness is not your friend i have to tell you it seems to be your friend you get rid of decisions you don't like you get rid of nine zero four which places serious limits on the type of relief you saw you now have litigation which shows what the vulnerabilities are but your equal protection due process claims that allows you to write a new fresh complaint to address them and you go straight to district court where the main thing you want you can get an injunction and said your honor it may or may not work to our benefit but i'm stuck with the truth and the truth is that i still have clients no you're not making an isolation say it's moot and we think the lower court decision should be vacated and we're going to file a complaint the day after that orders issued you're not stuck with anything and i'm trying to say it's beneficial to you or least explain to me why it's not your honor i have clients who are still working with people who are dealing with this and i'm here not to negotiate a way to go forward procedurally but to address the motion that's before the court whether these pleadings are adequate and in the end they are and i really do want to get to the issue of equal protection because in this two day hearing that the bankruptcy court can conduct it at the end of it he said the following moreover the court finds that there is a rational basis for the differing treatment some commercial customers have more complex service connections and therefore more complex disconnection procedures that is the rationale that we have because he made that finding and we don't need to get into negative ing all kinds of you know  speculative reasons for why they did that that's what has emerged from this case the apple e has signed on to that and we say that that is peyton only irrational in power versus village of not sterling they they  did the rational to treat commercial different from residential they are and this is the reason why because the suppose a reason for shutting people's water off is to promote payment to make them somehow think that ok now i better pay to get the water shut back on and to send a message to other people that they should do the same what people may want to pay but if they're poor they may not be able to come up with that money so their likelihood of getting a lot of money from these people is very slim however when you have corporate customers who owe tens of thousands of dollars hundreds of thousand dollars and in the state case of the state of michigan millions and you're saying that because it's a little harder to turn off their water you're not going to go after them you go and cut off chrysler's water for one day and see how much money that's going to generate immediately from the other corporate customers who are delinquent but you know rational basis for view doesn't the way it works is it's not an increase to the facts and the truth it's encouraging to whether there's a plausible explanation for the distinction that it plausible and it's not possible because it for the the utility to say that we're trying to get more money but we're not going to get it from the people who can pay it and who will pay if we do to do to them what we're doing to these residential customers and we're responding millions of dollars to try and cut off their water we're getting nothing really but we're getting nothing from them either it is impossible there are rare cases where if the rationale is implausible bunch of intentional discrimination based on race or anything else in this case no that isn't it that's not part of the case of disparate impact no this is this is this is based on it we can see that it's a rational relationship case you know as i mentioned that the affordability plan is not at issue and we really don't want you know those issues to be mixed in with with this this is a case where you know on a personal level know i've asked the good lord to help you to understand that we're talking about tens of thousands of people who are dealing with life and death situations this is not a case where you're dealing with just one family or one person you're talking about dialysis patients you're talking about people with who are extremely ill and disabled people who are poor they want to pay they really want to pay and all that they want to see fairness if you look at the interim rules and what it provides it doesn't say that when we talk about our we consider ability to pay that we're going to give you a break on how much you pay you're still going to pay the amount but we're going to work it out so that you can pay over time or we can do something that's going to allow you to pay the full amount and that's all that they ok one other question that has been raised the floor the issue that you just raised now that the bankruptcy is over the debtor has emerged from bankruptcy point you weren't there when i went bankrupt you didn't make that happen so that forced you in that that form well we appreciate both sets of arguments of the briefs i think we're going to talk among ourselves to the extent we're still interested in i think what we'll do is ask for letter briefs about it but we'll think about that first among the three of us and and think through whether that makes sense obviously nothing pretty but you if you have some insight about the moon it's an article three question so it's always relevant but within a day or two we should know whether we're going to ask for letter briefing on that so you might wait a day or two before you do anything to see whether we have something to say about it so anyway we thank thank you both it's a difficult case and we appreciate the arguments are been very helpful thanks for answering our questions and we thank you your honor for the extended time and the opportunity for us to know absolutely thanks so much the case will be submitted and once the lawyers have left you can call the next case