application but one that was in that they were in fact when to acquire this property from an outfit going g n p unfortunately they do not there is no deed  to somebody else or didn't use it yours is east side rail doesn't own the easement the record title ners according to the record title owners according to the county's research and have to deal on contractual matters and also against whom to aim and adverse and management application in the event it reaches that point at the current time we're giving those who have an obligation to run a marathon there or they could operating license there's an alternative one could conjure and that is that maybe this would go to another party g n p their original part that supposedly is there still a g  then there can be taken up in that city now that s t v said this is beyond our core expertise go to state court and get the property and contract question sorted out  but without prejudice to coming back to them if in fact the state of affairs as you were briefed to us describes borne out so what's wrong with that state could say these guys only these guys do not is such a thing because it has to be licenses preamp state law their position is no not in this not not in this way in the sense of who  doesn't perhaps i understand it they believe we can go to washington state court we're not so certain that we would have a remedy in washington state i'm not sure they believe you can either i think the reconsideration d this is sort of a negative pregnant that since this was from the bankruptcy proceeding maybe there was fraud committed when the steed's out by douglas single were issued such that d m p didn't even only the irony of the situation jumping around with the irony of this situation is that the douglas angle before he forced the g m p into bankruptcy before he force june and the bankruptcy conveyed as an officer of g n p the prerelease that to his father and his and then wife and there the record title owner's of it that was a deed that's in the record we've established that as well as it can be established he then forces the entity into bankruptcy no longer owns the break releasement his father and then wife while  claims his creditors against the bankrupt state do not disclose that they've received a settlement in addition mr ingle buttresses that point it at the same time asserts that th own was the primary and only valuable asset held by g n p course time was no longer going by g n p they concealed it from the trustee most likely and then the bankruptcy court so we have a potential massive fraud he has no incentive to reopen the proceedings because there were possibilities that illegal family members might end up in the clinic or in jail while i think i'm sorry that the s explanation as to the source only property right to be acquired they require when when a party knows that it the immediate saying to the agency it's going to work from does not hamper the property right what it means to be misleading the board apart from i know you have your argument as to actual falsity but apart from that is there case law on what we've seen this week and we do say case law saying that if an individual claims that they have an agreement to acquire but the remit doesn't exist or is there some problem with that i would say the problem is it can't be employed implemented and that's misleading i don't think the issue of misleading can be left up to what mr ingles judgment there has to be a more objective right but you're either you or agree mentioned you have cases where someone said we're going to acquire this but that was misleading and so so i think what we're asking is without suggesting that we don't agree with your falsity arguments if it were the case that the s t b really can't decide true or false doesn't it have more expertise and and more of domain over its idea of what's misleading in the context of the estimate mislead the board what misleads the board and what misleads people who are who it is regulating and so even if it's not false even if it turns out to be true but it's misleading is there any case that goes off on misleading as a law that you could point us to other words where the s b said may or may not be false even if at the end of the day it's true what him was really misleading i would say the black hills case cited in our brief comes close to the least close to what you're saying the parties there is a somewhat similar regulation that will suck the real says this is sort of super duper deference when you come up later and say this should be avoided but the regulation and their orders says that if there are false or misleading information in the supply it is to be void that's what the regulation in the water will say and i don't know how we could have stronger evidence honestly if what we presented that the e c or never got a of the lines between himself and families all kinds of self to i like his company that he was employed by the company he's later associated with but why doesn't he did does exist and it's with his team at some point now so cousin my uncle my wife or me but we've got this under control we've got this deal if you make if you make a representation to a government agency you're going to do something and then you don't father and he the real right and i guess he's trying to be part of it to this northwest signal company all of which if you read the regulations require a license f but as anyone applied for a license no doubt why should there concern the county we would probably be up to her objecting we'd be saying these these people have a track record that isn't or isn't  ideally isn't very comic book ok why should there be concern because federal real policy supposedly is supposed to protect the integrity of agency process isn't that we don't corrupt in the real industry and also they themselves are not thank you very much thank you our five reserve two minutes  was a war just when this was sort of a weird series of circumstances that we went through here in getting the different british and filed and we helped the case in a bandsman we consolidated the two cases we as alleged prejudice we have not and then just on the series of filings that happened here did you understand that they wanted to challenge that december order your honor i don't know whether the records did not reflect an intent to appeal that order in the nd appeal and this court has consistently looked at it does signal order is not the time he said look if if if if we don't we don't if they don't reference it in the nd petition but if we can infer fairly infer from all the related filings that they wanted to challenge the initial decision then the one that's good now with respect to the nd petition and there were no filings there were no contemporaries on us because we immediately consolidated and announced our nd docket and statement while there is nothing that prevented the county from filing something making clear their petition that there's no jurisdictional issue if we determine from this whole series of events of their intent was displayed then there's no jurisdictional issue if if this court determines that you can infer their intent from petition for review independently and if you look at that and consolidation and so does not mean that there is no question as to what the intent was you still go and you still look to the petition to have the petition does not specifically filings in connection with that nd petition and even if you could look back to the filings in connection with the st petition this court has held that pleading filed four months apart are quote plainly not contemporaneous and order was after the reconsideration was finalized and then indeed after the consent was finalized the county files a petition so it it does seem like there was a shared understanding that that was an effort to go after the st order we have looked back as in don't tar case and an earlier petition and said ok that they meant to roll that all into one at the end and that's it's obviously a mistake on their part and it's not good practice but the question is is there are there in dishes that have an intent to bring up i actually would love to hear from you on the merits ok because you know the question about whether this  as to ownership here was clear from that on the face of the county petition and i would also say that it is not just angle version that is at issue here but if in fact  but what happened in the bankruptcy court as well if by questioning the ownership here and whether that whether the evening was transferred from that is also bringing into question necessarily what occurred in the bankruptcy court you know maybe the bankruptcy court was misled too but that's over and done with that's been closed seven years the cases where there's no there's nothing to be done and i can't imagine that to the angle and in fact we don't know whether the transaction was valid to begin with but we also have the petitioner saying nothing happened in bankruptcy court but the bankruptcy court things happened and the transaction th because anyone dispute that this is not as clean cut as the exemption application or trade and that in fact there are complexities and disputes and serious question i didn't take the board to be disputing that in fact they went out of their way to scold mr angle for his lack of candor the question ability and the troubling behavior as we stated in in the december order of failure just to disclose potential issues regarding ownership of the issue and the notice could be found to be materially misleading by omission if the state did not have the necessary interest that they were represented of the road the relevant probably your own and this is why it is relevant what happened in the bankruptcy court because those may not have been misleading misrepresentations to record it may be that if the bankruptcy court did in fact avoid it i transfer and did in fact issue indeed that there was no hoarding of that train there that would be a matter of public record that was not avoided we don't have a complete record of the bankruptcy court and so we don't know what happened and i would be  we don't know when a party has come forward and given you a factual and legal theory about misleading them you don't have to buy a period but if you're not going to buy it you have to have a different version of how the facts and the law are lying now so that it's not misleading and not false and if you have that then you can say fine i'm not going to adjudicate this and there might be someone else that should but i don't even see what might in fact have been completely non false and not misleading you have to say that's actually what happened but in but all i'm asking for is like connecting the dots of what i state court scold him for not being honest in his silence and in fact dropped a footnote knowing a month ago we were told the telegraph no help this easement i don't know how they can make those statements and not say and say they he was it not still a potential issue when he didn't disclose it in fact g m he doesn't have it my wife and father have it there's a deed here under suspicious circumstances but they're going to give it to this person but there's no actual deed recorded or as the board found properly executed or completely executed the deed to them we're going to say we think it's good enough is because we don't know whether each of these three transaction was valid we under state law and i do not know whether that that was an actual misrepresentation or it w you deeds there's nothing valid but for whatever combination of circumstances we're going to hold our nose and say the end of the day it was somehow bad enough back in g m piece hands to be executed through the bankruptcy is the board ready to say yes for his filing with us for the exemption was fine it wasn't misleading it was fine that he didn't disclose and it's probably just this is all that we expect of attorneys is when they file an exemption is just to say their bottom conclusion not disclose this issue is that the board's position county did not ask for belief based on angle not disclosing the question they can just asking you because the board went out of its way it was legal whether or whether for example mr angle had the authority to unilaterally transfer the only primary asset of g n p without the knowledge or sign off of the president of the company i think is a valid construed the counties petition to be making a claim that there was no book that no this was contained false information in that they can only did not make a what the question what i was saying earlier about misleading was the fact that the county never claimed that because the ownership dispute or the gray area or the fact that there was a question was never disclosed was the board says in the st paragraph on that page that the entire petition turns on the basically the weather  it seems to me that ward never did any sort of separate in the house is to say whether the filings themselves were misleading the board just said the only thing that really we care about is whether it was true or not that they owed this property and a court has to decide that but there was no separate analysis of whether in the totality of circumstances what was filed before us was incomplete or misleading i don't see that analysis as having taken place the to whether it was whether there was a question as to ownership whether their representation was false it requires application of state property law and the board has consistently why isn't the right way to look at this and if the carrier is playing fast and loose with that application they don't get to skip the step they're going to go through four before process  think there's a couple of issues there one when you were asking to revoke a petition the burden is on the county and not if it is consistent longstanding board precedent on and that revocation is appropriate and here the revenue began that the county did not come to us saying angle is a shady character he's done all of these possible and possibly federal bankruptcy law expertise but the word simply does not the board is not an expert in the state laws of all fifty jurisdiction my gist of it so that's i think a separate question i have a feeling that is oh well and the board has settled precedent that trespass actions cannot be adjudicated and quiet title actions at least and when someone assert in there were just there was a railroad line running and someone said i think it's running over my property i'm filing in state court a quiet title action to obtain the remedy of the jackson of that rare world line the board's position truly is that that's not preempted i've misunderstood your question when when the question is who owns the property the board has said we do not prompt we do not state court will simply say you have title or you don't have a title or a city east coast you don't have title but not afford anybody because they have to come back to the is that the theory is correct and what authority do you have that washington state courts will adjudicate disputes where they cannot give the necessary remedy that comes with a quiet title action well i could have had a different experts saying no no no we understand under state law you know that actually is and it never went out of gympie in the st place and you know i don't have that either you do that in his claim that it was you know given back promptly that's just a fantasy and in fact it was it was with the bankruptcy estate and then it went to a c r and all is well and good like that that it seems to me is rather than seeking advisory opinion that would be the way to at least give them the board and ability to say you know is this colorable e true or is this misleading and maybe even  exercise of the board's regulatory authority not for purposes of the do getting a state law outcome but for purposes of respect for the board regulatory authority in this but that we don't have that i think that before the board can determine what was misleading and what potentially would be the appropriate remedy for that if there were missed if there were misleading statements made to the board would be what in fact is misleading what is the scope of that and then at that point it would be appropriate for the authorize that but the failure to fulfill that requirement is not a ground for one thing william and finding him until we know which of those those transfers were were were valid we don't know which of those where the parties do not do not obtain prior authorization and they come back to the board and we give retroactive authorization and so i think in that with that fact situations we don't know what we're dealing with taking it away what can you just sort of give us a better sense of why that is i mean if i'm a licensing entity and an energy that i believe since has some business at me i would think i would want to say go away you know you're grounded i'm not going to give you this privilege and it seems like there's something pushing on the other side for the board and i'm just curious what that it was again and that is why the board admonished mr and already got back to i might say about the other side but why is it so reluctant to throw the book when it's having when it's authorities being disrespected in at least plausibly alleged to being to having been disrespected and so many ways because point i think it would be premature at this point because we we truly don't know what happened and so if once the board of one if it's if the county comes back to the board after a state court looked at the state law property issues and issues of declaratory judgment or what have you adjudicating the property rights here they come back to us and say here we know what happened then then the board  different position but again we simply do not know who owns what here and what what congress could have been misleading or might not have been was you see are not a party to the and by that i think clear references to his deed out to joey and his wife his then wife and to doug his father his deed out and he says they did not follow through because it was not my concern at the time in other words he chose not to raise it with the trusting of bankruptcy he did not make any attempt to reverse the subtle changes i made to records pretty clear that g n p never had any title to this during the course of that entire