in addition mr bryan was issued three range units on the pine ridge indian reservation which we are here did to discuss today and which was the focus of the decision by judge we should this matter and those arrange unit six nine seven nineteen arrangement is basically where the government takes a land a bunch of land that may be owned by a number of landowners and they put it into a unit and then they calculate how many particular cattle that particular unit can run and they authorize that i'm on a cattle  welp it was signed by dad it was signed by the super cannon who is the chief overall federal officer on the pine ridge indian reservation he acts pursued to delegated authority by the department of interior secretary of the department you're onto the commissioner of indian affairs does not say that he was signing this contract on behalf of the indian land owners and i think that's a particularly significant distinction because when you look that case it was made very clear that he was acting on behalf of the indian landowners in the case in this case and there is there is no doubt that and counter distinction to some of the the only way that they can terminate the contract well they can terminate the contract they can reduce that if for example they take land out of the range unit so that the number of cattle has to be reduced but about the agreement because they were legal title owners of the land i don't understand your answer to judge well he's ok and i mean there were grounds for revoking the permit in this case were they not there was there were around suggesting that the peer permit was not yes the same hearing procedure that we've got going on in this case yes that's been ongoing for like eight years now and still it's not as not finalized itself so turning to that then why isn't there  occlusion there is not claim preclusion because number one as i just said i think it's unfair to require came claim preclusion in this case in view of the length of time that is taken be the and i don't believe that there's any along that says that if there is and ministry believe that mat be available that would not be authorised to give  the claimant money damages as required to it's required to be exhausted prior to making claim for money damages in this case in the other the other claim that was that was not addressed by the i b i in this case is the third claim for relief and that was where he was not allowed to use range unit in any of these range units for the two thousand and four gra period in this case because the bureau was let's just misread the regulations and they said that since there was an appeal that was that was are going they thousand dollars that they attempted to charge him as a condition for using the land in two thousand and five in other words he went in and he gave them  money for two thousand and five and they apply that to two thousand and four and but he was unable to use and so the court and not judge we entered judgment for mr brime but that's only part of the damages of that particular case he was not able to use that range unit for the entire year i mean that's six hundred ten a cattle out in south dakota that's big money that's significant because you're you he had to take those cattle to a few lot pay a fee lot to to to to fatten those cattle and washer three hundred three hundred dollars or three hundred thousand dollars in this case be the claim that's that's a let's do one of one of these head of cattle call for just i'm well right right now i can't tell you the exact head right now i know what i know it's very high at this particular point in perspective whatsoever you can probably probably somewhere a cow is probably somewhere between eight and twelve hundred bucks right now which is very high clearly please the court the decision of the court of federal claims should be affirmed the court correctly held that mr o'brien's permits were contracts between the indians landowners and istra brian not contracts with the united states pursuant to the applicable permits statutes and regulations the government granted and administered mr bryant's permits as revocable licenses on behalf of the  landowners and the proper remedy for any dispute between mr o'brian and the b ira regarding the administration of these permits was and the department of interior ministr don't have the authority to grant him a material that is the forum for that that the i a e a and the department of interior have established for resolving disputes with the government concerning the claim against the we don't have a position on that your honor again the regulations state that these are contracts between indian then owners and mr brian in fact that's clear from the statute and the regulations that the ice sponsibility is to assist indian landowners in issuing permits and leases for their land land that they have an interest in the surface interest right in including grasslands as in the case here well is he going to get what an individual not in this area but just and the individual therefore get bounced back and forth and if it goes into state court or otherwise and s case we don't we don't have an address that in that race and we haven't taken a position on that question there may be issues of tribal sovereignty unity again that's not the position we're taking here since this case was in the court of federal claims and it involves sovereignty and they can't see the u s government because i mean that may be the case and we haven't taken a position on that particular issue and that would be an issue for tribal or state or even federal district court to take up certainly these  has the ability to conduct hearings to take it evidence and to make decisions that they simply do they don't have the power to issue damages issue a decision regarding damages against united states but the proceeding currently is on re man and to the agency for consideration of actual damages caused by mr bryan's overgrazing and other permanent violations on range unit six and nine and the factual issues there are somewhat different and we did address that in a briefing below i don't believe we brought addressed it in our briefing in this court but essentially the documents that are referred to in the complaint make clear that the tribe allocated mr bryant's allocated the land that was subject to permit seven nineteen so that mr brian windows on are able to raise on that land an allocation is something that's f these contracts they breached the agreement that only they could make so the united states is responsible here whether or not  as owner of the land or as a trustee and what it be odd that if the government is not responsible that the poor indian beneficiary is saddled with the with the misconduct of the government and i think it's clear under common to work for our common trust principles that that that the supreme court and this court of supplied in these right judge judge we clearly found that there was a property right this case because of the nature of the of the of the contract in this case and consequently  bryan should be able to sue the united states for the agreement that it made in this case as a beneficiary of that trust that the government has in this