surrendered its claims and mr exchange agreed to refrain certain marketing activities and here's the key provisions settlement agreement this issue in the case and essential bargain for was a written under undertaking an understanding quote that there have been no findings or admissions of wrongdoing or liability by the us but that was the bargain for covenant and  that the government made here now the second part of your question is is there something that you know we often rise to government to spend money on this again i would say yes all five commission and that's the expansion that the government is destined here and we suggest respectfully that it has no support in the plain language of the statute or in the legislature is this truly a civil civil action under title five of the f t c act you're absolutely right what happens where the government enforces the traction for the benefit of the public is that really a private action or is that a public action well we have some sort of a guidance on this subject for the united states supreme court in the winstar case if you may be familiar with the winstar cases went on she was a reasonably familiar with the united states supreme court and significantly it was a breach contract civil case neither this court or the u s supreme court found a problem with your stiction of the  whatsoever and as to your point which is this is a super bowl is this proprietary conduct or sovereign capacity conduct there in the united states supreme court in the late in the forelady decision characterize the government's conduct proprietary versus sovereign and i'm going to back up here again and say that that distinction to has its roots in that case which is a criminal case it's never been applied in a civil context when it when this when  were engaging in writing contracts where they were supplying the government was supplying monetary aid to these institutions it was truly commercial undertaking but the government was engaging in with the party that can't be just the same said when the f district court and or accepted an enter the settlement agreement between your client you have to stay and retain jurisdiction over circumstances why shouldn't you be there why shouldn't the u s especially for deciding whether there is a contract or a breach is a good question simple answer and that is the district work and only retain jurisdiction that it has the top of the little talk or act specifically instructs the district courts that they have no jurisdiction the united states government those cases must be exclusively filed in the federal court of claims and so i think it is a very fair conclusion to say that this district court to the extent that was retaining jurisdiction to enforce the of the settlement agreement could not have retained any jurisdiction that it did not have this these little tucker tucker clearly put it all square and we often can see that happening in the sanders case you may remember what happened in the government is one of the parties that automatically to the parties have a choice did your client have a choice could he have gone to the district court or not requesting monetary relief but an injunction perhaps or somehow the relief and gone to the district court but if he decides to go for  the application of his doctorate in the gross if you will in a civil suit if we agree with you that kony has no life outside a criminal setting game's over you well i would think if we crossed that threshold and leave you behind and say no we think you can apply in a civil case and then i turn to the languages standard and i say but here they are really i don't i disagree with you i don't think the five commissioners meant to burden the united states with a monetary relief here now to decide whether your keep your lead argument is correct which is to say whatever that finished up is it only applies in a criminal setting next case yes and if as i say we leave you behind there if we say no we t prudent to have some or struction on talk or act your section and civil in a civil side then it would seem to made that i can't really find a way around saying i won the language and sanders that authorized there isn't but there is much it doesn't require the fact the statute even toxic there's expressly talks in the statute about awarding and liquidated damages against the government so how could that be a requirement of the statute that you have to have a liquid that is essential to a judgment and can in another case and the finding is that the difference between the press release and the stipulated order have not led to discernible injury to mr trudeau it would change me that that's  finding that he hasn't been harmed if he hasn't been harmed then he has no case and controversy has no standing he has no beef with regard to the government  action you have to demonstrate injury well i would say not so fast the collateral stopped the doctor acquires that the identical issues in each case and furthermore th court there are two things that are under speeded the case first being that the stipulated or which mr true basis claim contains expressed provision stating that it is to be enforced in the district court that approved and show why isn't this an agreement with the government and the government has a certain obligation to perform under that agreement and if it breaches it and there are monetary damages due to the breach why can't it be before the federal  contracts that are in forcible by way of a money damages judgment against the united states if the contract in question does not afford such a remedy it doesn't fall within talk or jurisdiction even though  thing agreement isn't forcible as all the other elements of it in forcible contract but then you're from now but on your first point two years you're pointing to the provision which says a third district court will have jurisdiction to enforce it but that would you agree that the district court let's assume there were there's a monetary element to win the enforcement you wouldn't concede that the government therefore waive their right and the district court could impose monetary relief against the government in the cont i'm right i'm not sure i understand your honest question in terms of the district court's ability to enforce the settlement agreement yes can they find against the government in terms of monetary relief and award monetary central holding is that although there is an agreement with the united states and although that agreement isn't forcible and some it is not the type of agreement by which the government has agreed to have its obligations enforced  being dragged to the canadian kicking in speech saying look it doesn't even apply in a simple sense that we signed this settlement contract with the government and they bargain for backing our client had been accused of serious release contravene that pledge of neutrality if you and if it's in a purely civil setting then why wouldn't the all kick in ordinarily you think of what's the remedy for defamation of character for slander or libel money right that's what people mostly want they they like a retraction new york times runs a retraction saying we're sorry smeared but usually the because the ultimate rationale that those disses and rest upon apply irrespective of criminal or civil context in fact as we pointed out in our brief the rationale for a lot of fun by the court of claims in canada it was extended back to cases in which that involved federal employment disputes military and civilian pay cases the court explain even though that type of setting certainly can be viewed as you know vacuum as a contractual point nevertheless the court of long held that those types of arrangements which are completely civil do not put up the do not fall its contractors and the reason because it's because the backdrop against which the government hires its employees is one that doesn't speak to contracts or contract obligations at all other words it's a statutory relationship based upon a point and because of that backdrop that implicates upon the planet's behalf the need to provide a specific provision that states the government would not it's broader and of course it doesn't say anything about exceptions for criminal related contracts it doesn't provide any exception for contracts implied in the law for example it doesn't provide an in the other categories that are founded upon claims involving statutes regulations constitutional issues there's no qualification for those categories either but of course this court and its predecessors for four decades have helped that they can attempt to negotiate an actual settlement agreement with the government agency and then do something with the court proceeding here nothing like that occurred it's not the f t c as practice to settle cases  anything that would say that unless the federal government specifically wagered sovereign immunity for enforcement he would not be subject to contractual liability monetary damages no the teaching of canada is that these types of law enforcement actions can be contracts with the military but if that contract just must spell that out in terms of the availability of breach damages and of course the the that promise recognizes that there can be contract between the sovereign and a private party but that relief from breach of a contract simply doesn't lie and attacker that's correct or in the key is that the availability monetary damages in this case is is an easier case really than can carry it was a oral contract in the alleged oral contract and the court was therefore constrained to look to the circumstances in which it was created it looks at the fact that it came from another form that had a jurisdiction dedicated to it by congress but i see my time is up so i was there to finish your thought thank you thank you jurisdiction over money damages for him but that doesn't make it happen the district court would read the act and say i can't hear this no the suggestion i am designing your stupid maybe i'm wrong was that nice in so doing your your side conceded to me it was  an agreement that the gov government was not subject to monetary life villany in the event that's think that's a few that you may not agree with that but that's a huge leap that's a huge lead by mean first of all any kind of waiver under that and but that is exactly what happened the government did chose not to prove up its liability it's choose not to get a court finding but that it went to the world on the internet site and effectively announced that there had been a