happy business to attend to and in that connection i understand that judge moore has a motion to make rather than decide i get to move the admission and screens there whether you get in or not or it's in the hands of my colleagues and i'd like to move the admission of adam michael green feel who is a member of the bar in good standing of the highest co of illinois and john frank murphy was a member of the bar in good standing of the highest court of pennsylvania and these two gentlemen have worked for me for the last year with great distinction it's been my privilege an honor to work with them and i'm going to miss them terribly when they leave i sally that's john it's daughter ok on the business i have knowledge of their credentials and i'm satisfied that they possess the necessary qualification will look forward to seeing you in court you've already been of invaluable assistance to us through your work in the judge morse chambers and we know that will continue we look forward to the panel welcome to the all right well will now proceed to the cases before saddam the panel has five cases before or two of them however being submitted on the briefs without oral argument i will just note those two cases for the record the first one is number two zero zero eight dash seven one four seven shackleford versus the department of veterans affairs and the second submitted cases number two zero zero nine dash three zero eight one labrador versus the office of personnel mansion again those cases are being submitted on the briefs without oral argument the first case in which we will hear argument today is number two zero zero eight dash five zero three six harvest harvest institute versus the united states mr squ institute friedman's father ration black and the engine that at the fence legal fine and william warner you already issue in this is the question of whether the decision and the federal court the cla not assigned to them on the grounds drawing from the following treaties and on the civil war but isn't it true that the complainer amended complaint didn't allege any specific treaty statute or regulation that is not correct your honor duties and allege that the government has failed faithfully to form those duties i'm having trouble finding the substantive source the loft because i read this when you read the rest of the union as requiring a minimum the plaintiff to allege the specific statute regulation or other law that creates the affirmative fiduciary duty and i'm having trouble with the notion that you could make a generalized statement  revised or amend that up until the turn of the century but the fundamental basis for this claim rest in those eighteen sixty six treatments which are specified  individually in the complaint the argument here is that under the arms treaty is the amount of states under took the responsibility of a trustee in relation to the freedm affected by the treaties what language in the treaty created trust your out of the trust is created that either authorities articulated by the supreme court on numerous occasions sets prior to the separated from those tribes and to receive the entitlements created by the treaties where neither of those outcomes occurred it was the argument of the appellate that by reason the supreme court rhaetian opinions have indicated you can't just say it's a general trust relationship well that's the be a specific trust relationship you're right now about the recent navajo opinion requires the articulation of a specific trust relationship it was the position of prominence here that the eight hundred sixty six treaties do that the reason that they create a general trust relationship with the right to property land or entitlements based on the condition of the apartments in advance of the treaties being created there was a specific duty created on the part of the tribes that held these individuals to either give them land or to integrate them into their tribes and they have bet that that did not happen the had a duty and this is the claim that is being made here where that did not happen by virtue of the mandate of those treaties the amount it states had a duty to assure that the any transfer of land any of the tribes at that point in time was a recognition of the thirteenth fourteenth and fifteenth amendments which created essential inability of the tribes to integrate the freedmen within their tribal structure and subsequent to that if in fact they were so integrated they would then obtain a right to some land if they were integrated and longer allowed to hold slaves that the slaves put in their being integrated into the tribes or if they were not integrated into the tribes there was land a law to the tribes that should have been given to the ex slaves it's our position here that word neither outcomes occurred the amount of states had a duty given the fact that it had created this right to pr created under these treaties that are number one response to the recent opinion in the navajo case that in this case the rez a specific in title meant create and that in instances notwithstanding the creation of this entire home at the beneficiaries never received anything and that until such time as the amount that states formally its duty to can occur to accord these benefits to these individuals a claim under the tucker act is not barred because the statute of limitations  that how did you get a case of the difficulty i was having with the case was seeing how there was an obligation here on the part of the government that was breached because it seemed to me if in fact anything was not done that should have been done it was on the part of the tribe but it's over the several tribes that is correct your honor it's the tribes who fail to honor the requirements of the treaties but was the tribes who failed to carry out the provisions of the trust it's the beneficiaries who have the claim against the trust big notwithstanding the fact that the third person was the in the vidual  that duty the statute of limitations does not run against the beneficiary doesn't just you know i promise to give you one hundred dollars right and then i don't pay it to you and i don't pay to run i don't pay it to you when does the statute of limitations start ticking plate when you say i have no intention of giving you your hundred dollar isn't isn't it enough that you know i've moved on moved away and you know you don't see any evidence that i'm going to pay you don't you have an obligation at some point to to move forward isn't that why the statute of limitations exists because we were talking about claims here that are more than a hundred years old and nobody would see exactly how well you know you are in the united states supreme court said in the t was in the united states is that these are exploited and abused in the bit route there may be conduct which in some circumstances could give rise to notice as you've indicated that that would trigger the statute of limitations where you are dealing with in the bill to us who have been totally exploit that have no right to keisha have no understanding of the law did not have counsel i don't think the same type of analysis would be where you have a different set of circumstances that will do you have any examples of cases that you could cite to me that explain that disadvantage to individuals who are unsophisticated in the law the statute of limitations doesn't apply to them suit that there was no obligation to take further under these agreements that everything was raised to the father and that the statute of limitations had run one hundred years ago it was  brought this case that the statute of limitation was preserved the two theories the continuing claims theory and under the repudiation rule and its opinion the trial court didn't address i repudiation who argument at all they are eating peterson of the united states this court should affirm the dismissal of this case for any one of a number of reasons first of all the federation is entirely failed to establish standing to sue because it's alleged injury is not traceable to any action or inaction by the united states that's required by the constitution a federal law in the absence of knowing of a violation of a provision of the agreements here ari yes the provisions of the treaties that had anything to do with the tribe civilize tribes continued right to occupy their lands were substantially modified by agreements that were completed as of one thousand and two alighting land to all of the members of those tribes including the freedman members that had been adopted there was at least one there was one of the tribes that did not adopt its freedman those freedman brought an action that was decided by the united states initial point simply because of the potential jurisprudential appropriateness of that order it is not required each of these preach of the arguments that we make in our in our red brief damages the only a plate ability of trust law in that instance in that such a decision is to determine whether or not the provision violated may reasonably be inferred is creating a right did say that we now have a trust responsibility to freedom and that never happened there was a position that was taken by the united states they have the freedom and become a member of their truck correct that is what the tribes committed to were to have benefited from actions by the tribes that would have allowed those tribes to continue their occupancy of their tribal lands and those tribal lands were allotted to individuals in at the turn of the century any claim having to do six if in fact the united states provided for those individual freedom and to become members of the tribe and they did become members of the tribe is there a responsibility  the united states at that point in time as a trustee to make sure that those actions are taken by the tribal your honor that is a question that's not addressed in this litigation whether there are obligations of the united states to persons who are obliged by parties to treaties to be treated in a certain way is an interesting question the question here that's not an interesting question i think it's a legal issue as to whether or not the united states owed the freedm is no specific rights creating a duty imposing language in any one of those treaties between the parties here between the freedmen and the united states and in the absence of specific rights creating would you be imposing prescriptions in a treaty and that duty needs to run to the plate in order for that provision to waive united states immunity to attack or airplane based on that provision in this instance it's clear that those treaties terms and any duty that may have been created by those by and by the treaty in anything under any theory was clearly changed if not ever dated with respect to the allotment of these lands by the does commission allotment of the lands of the five civilized tribes by congressional action so the question here which is whether the court correctly dismissed or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is clearly yes the court correctly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the shame that could have had all the litigation that's the reason because of whether a particular treaty creates a trust relationship or not it's too bad that congress back in those days could have just had two boxes in the statute of the treaty and said tucker rock no tucker and the spirit like that it would almost get to that it would you know unfortunately the indian there was subsequent implementing legislation that would be allotment x to see that this land was properly allocated among the freedmen to the extent that the tucker asked created a claim against the united states and they have been a breach of contract recently that constituted the waiver of sovereign immunity and the trust relationship that exist between the united states and the freedman that the three hundred thousand dollars that lives of the example of action being required on the tribes be have other to obtain a title meant to a benefit been extended by the united states i point that out judge only request that the court reject that the primary argument that we have for you are is that we argued that the statute of limitations was not a bad art to these claims either to grounds the continuing claim the second case in which we will hear or