i mean it's a question it's also on the other case we were to hold ultimately just hypothetically that the district court's second paragraph of the injunction whap dilution  should be reversed let's assume hypothetically we do that you care what happens here is this case then moved i love everyone here but i do not care if the issue would be moot for my purposes i mean let's face it the the issue for our national recovery's is does it have the ability to defend its right to receive work under its a preexisting contract that's what this is all about and so if the court were to address  certainly as would have been identified in the spread sheet at the court just reviewed and had been doing so just as it had received a new work every month for five years under its previous contract in two thousand and nine and then suddenly as we all know based upon the protests in the underlying case here which relates to separately procured the separately procured so the contracts for the same type work everything everything stopped this broad all encompassing  claims denied that request for intervention on the grounds that national congress had no legally protect the will interests because it's contract only or what sort of standard we're in the denial of a motion to and what is the matter it's actually a good question because  it's not been determined specifically our position is it's a no vote there are no facts in this future here i don't think anyone well there's a there's a dispute from my adversary he believe discretion quite frankly i don't know that the result should be any different our position is because there are no facts in dispute that it should be a noble standard so judge braden decided to do when the underlying case was deny our believe intervene because she determined that we do not have a legally protected will interest and that we in fact we had no interest in the action because any judgment in the case would not affect our ability to receive a new work at some point leader in time and by re national recovery is that part is true to the extent that this litigation perpetuates we have no idea to what extent the the partner of justice will continue to advocate on behalf of small business we just don't  show that there is some divergence or could be some divergence between other counsel in the case and the position that that the prospective intervener would take it's enough our position on that would be  wasn't decided by judge braden while right now the department of justice has in fact in taking a position that would be advantageous to us the issues that the department of justice are is dealing with in the underlying  ok if you take a look at the briefing that was filed by the department of justice for example the reference to small business is very small the the brief is very few home and it's the you know we're the it's the we're very small piece i guess the best way to put it with a very large problem so what we are concerned with is that our problem would be lost and the mix of all these other issues would have to hit a litigator if this thing which perpetuate so the four cases you have two federal circuit cases and you have to court her claims cases and two federal circuit cases that were referenced by the parties are somewhat limited value but one is more instructive than the other the two are american should have provided the intervenor was a competitor and wanted to participate in the lawsuit because if you're that if american maritime prevailed that the intervenor would be facing stiffer competition at some point indefinitely in the future maybe the federal circuit have stated that you know if you're a future subsidize competition which may never arise does not reflect an interest in the property or transaction issue in this action not a surprise given the the facts of this case are very different the facts of this case are such that we are getting no contracts at this time we are not permitted to get we're not getting transfers we're getting no additional new work because of  that's in place so it's if there's not some indefinite indirect or contingent harm or interest our interest is very direct at the present moment unless the federal circuit sides to act otherwise so very different and fact judge block in finding for intervention in the in the northrop case did exactly what we're suggesting here which is distinguish america and american american maritime from the facts of that case and we're going to at the moment the other case that's instructive we think more so than american maritime is freedom wireless and for this reason was infringement case between freedom wireless and boston communications after the  wireless this court took the position that it appeared that nextel had a legally protected interest relating to the injunction and why is that important it's important because in that instance that was an instance where a contract for a was being quickly going to the two cases we think are very important armor of american northrop grumman both are important because they get into so so much detail with respect to when intervention should be permissible both cases involve not parties that wish intervene to protect their disclosure or the disclosure of proprietary information and in both cases intervention was permitted in both cases the court determined that the nonparty at a legally protected interest in the proprietary information nextel was permitted to do in the freedom wireless case and it should not have been a leap for the court of federal claims to do because as judge block pointed out in north from roman satisfying the legally protected bill interest issue is quote not a very facts in those cases were such that the interviewer in both cases had no interest in the ultimate outcome of the of the case yet intervention was allowed anyway and as judge damage pointed out in armor of america although the federal circuit has not clarified the meaning of the term action as that term is used in twenty four other ports have chose not to limit the term to the case as a whole but instead have expanded the definition to accomplish collateral issues in the suit and we're suggesting that that's precisely what should occur here so power it was unwittingly dragged into the underlying matter here and simply sires the right to intervene if it's necessary elaborate on that the as was not disputed any point during this appeal but during the case below the department of education does not reserve pools of accounts for a particular contractor or set of contracts and in other words there is no contract right expectation that in the normal course you will receive business is insufficient right and there is no case that there would have that would hold that education make its allocation attempt allocation decision for any of that kind of constraint that has been imposed by the injunction right now well that would to any amount of transfers and there may be a separate problem here in terms of the arbitrariness with which the department of education's administered these contracts but the bottom line is these are indefinite quantity indefinite livery concert contracts with heavily which is an unpublished decision from this court wolfson and the case it cites that being american maritime that's that's the controlling precedent here and the second prong of the relevant test is that the minimum minimum does not doesn't seem to be outside the scope of merely economic the cases that found the right intervene focused on significant intellectual property rights the protection of proprietary course absent the injunction they'd be getting additional caps right only it could say that the department of education i mean again no legal entitlement to art education as said they would get the in any case i'm happy to answer more questions i think we probably all know that the test says again its mere economic interests are not sufficient and then the third prong of the relevant test is that the interest relationship litigation must be of such a direct and immediate character at the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment and as i mentioned before and our eyes contract is not a part of this relevant test and also because the contract is not the subject of this litigation there's no direct and immediate impact of the litigation on in our eyes contract and so we understand your point judge that i mean the contract has been temporarily pause this in terms of receiving new accounts but the contract is still in place and soon as it completes its corrective action they're free to move on with it and again if you look at all the case by both parties but a focus on the one sided by n r i the common thread in all these cases that being northrop grumman freedom wireless armor of america and everything else they cite the common thread is that in each case there  let's call it six months and when it's that six months is gone and then the longer this continues the more time is lost more opportunity is lost to national recovery and so there is something very tangible at stake here and it's very important that it's taken into consideration as part of this that's assuming we would get bored or an idea you got right there's no guarantee right it's true that there is no guarantee our position is that the history belies the fact that we would not  receive additional placements as we have for since two thousand and nine every month since two thousand and nine actual recoveries has received were new work every single month so i understand your point your honor but the history belie the the the fact that that that would not occur to say in the in the first council of the metal case number seventeen twenty one fifty five the court has determined to stay pending appeal the second part either later today or monday but the stays effective immediately and if there are not questions about that i don't think we have anything further counsel have any question yes