outcome of this proceeding was was essentially pretty much pre determined because so is there no equal protection claim on the table no not at all but the the  requirement of actual exposure is so difficult to to prove given the nature of the agent orange that you know it's it's if it combines with the soil it combines with the water and this it goes to the food chain and it can stay that it's a dialysis which doesn't break down so we can stay in the soil for decades and it's further complicated in this case because this veteran was on a covert mission and during the prior to sixty five which is what was covered by the buckingham article that's when the air force came in and prior to that the cia was there with their their covert mission which was air america herbicide that that that's the problem because the proofs are on a thing well my argument is more that they that that trend's such as that as the veteran here should get records that would be necessary to establish his case are in the possession of the government and cannot be released for however justify the reasoning and and our argument is that if they are in possession of these the records at which standish's case and cannot cannot or will not release them the financial consequences of that should be on the government in which i referenced there's public documents that that talk about yes there was spray but the actual documentation of it would be in the possession of the cia because they were the ones who over over if this were just somebody within the republic of vietnam say that that train would just have to present his service records and that the say ok you were you were stationed in vietnam everything's fine but when you have somebody who is outside vietnam it's not enough for him to get his service records or her service records they also need the records within the possession of the government to show where and when spraying because those are you're saying that that is that the application of the government's regulation that applies to everybody or that served outside not at the application that regulation you c is basically impossible to to prove and that's that's basically that's also illustrated by the fact that i couldn't find any cases where it was actually established there were a few that that sort of intends or anticipates that some some people outside vietnam should should get these benefits but i couldn't find them and so the fact that over this week long period of time no one has been able to establish actual exposure is it is it's a daunting and virtually impossible standard and i think that we have if the actual exposure were numerous articles that i cited to that talk about their passing been spraying during that time by the cia and there are also and the one article that cited was actually dealt with the buckingham article saying that major buckingham was aware of this spraying and wasn't allowed to talk about it to disclose it maps of spraying missions released for vietnam research show many flights extending to the borders of laos and cambodia where the lines abruptly stop so there is there is evidence out there there is a that there was framed prior to that so there is sufficient there is sufficient evidence here that that would permit reaching fifty the extra the at the further step of evaluating that the actual exposure component of it which is which would require allowing there or or i think there is an absence of the factual predicate here of the military that mr mr adams was working with the military the mac military assistance advisory group put him in laos in sixty one to sixty two and he left in august of sixty two or october sixty two sometime there veteran with any other claim if they had evidence of direct service connection in other words if they had the sufficient evidence that show that they were actually subject or in an area where there was a brain he would have been if he would be able to establish direct service connection we doing a rational basis review but particularly with respect to trying to find the correct definition of republic of vietnam and it's in the waterways it said this court held that the line that was drawn in other words within the republic of vietnam and its in the waterways was a rational line given that congress was trying to figure out how it could basically benefit the great majority of folks who may have been exposed to herbicides but not to extend it to those folks who for the most part were not exposed service sides and that would include the issues there were and hostile folks who were off the shore of vietnam couple of miles or even within sight of within a mile on these boats that couldn't go into the harbors here we have the same question an individual who was in laos but more so what we have is a absence of the factual predicate in that in this case unlike those folks who would be able to with the max the m a g s he was a military was a uniformed individual and history shows that they were there until nine hundred sixty two when the united states entered into the geneva accords and united states agreed to pull its military personnel out of  stayed there in the form of the cia but not in the form of military individuals mr edmonson didn't transfer to the cia like some of his colleagues did with him and left back to united states so he's not even there actually he's not part of the cia operation that took place between were after nine hundred sixty five when mag pulled out but again the question isn't even what was mag question is has the united states and we think it has starting in the late seventy's even continuing until today in the form of the congress in the form of the v a in the form of the military service organizations have been trying to grapple with the effects of using herbicides in vietnam during the vietnam era and they've come up with detailed statutes and regulations to address that situation and the v a is actually gone and as we say in a footnote i believe at six in our brief and where you as an individual don't meet the requirements of eleven sixteenth's presumption you may still get effectively the benefits of such a presumption if you can show that you were in an area outside of vietnam which has been recognized by the united states military as being an area where herbicides were used that would include and in this case the what the guidance that the that the regional office and boards follow your honor is basically consistent with the presumption for those folks outside of vietnam but within the recognized rising were flowing for service and that there was clearly both the legislative intent was to draw the line around the republic of vietnam based upon the fact that the evidence showed that everybody all the evidence scientific evidence at that time showed that those within the landmass of vietnam were those most likely to be exposed and therefore could suffer consequences congress did based on that science did not extend presumption beyond service in vietnam during a particular time period what the v a has done with its practices is recognize that in the course of defining what love and sixteen should be the military contribution to that analysis was to identify where they used herbicides and it includes not in the era of sixty one sixty two but after that when herbicides became more prevalent in the sixty five sixty six and especially sixty seven to sixty eight time period they recognized that there were missions that were flown as referenced by counsel into laos and cambodia and laos particularly with respect to the operation  ranching which is described and that was the defoliation to support the attack on the coachmen trail and and what the v a has done is although it's not required under eleven sixteen to do this it has provided connections places time and circumstances i was at a place at particular time and this is what i was doing and people made those arguments with facts to try to support that that they were that they could meet the in service promise of the service connection question is free obviously it's up through exercising its discretion to ignore all these jurisdictional hoops are raised in the beginning but we raised them because we thought that the court should be aware that we were thinking about them clearly even if i guess my problem is don't we to the point of whether there was a waiver and that it would depend on whether or not the lower court had the authority to pass on the constitutionality of the rules and regulations or the court could understand the question to be an attack on an application of law or a dispute about facts and find that on that basis under seventy two ninety two he doesn't have jurisdiction over the case and that to the extent there is due process question is it's a question in name only which would allow the court cannot address whether or not certain questions were a way if the court was inclined to discuss the waiver question as recent just that we think that to the extent there was a facial challenge which doesn't seem to be the case that would implicate whether or not that action score had jurisdiction entertain a facial challenge but because if it didn't have that jurisdiction it wouldn't matter because raising it would've been futile so this court could then look at the question if we look at it more as an application question or just a general fairness question it would seem that the score probably does have jurisdiction to come to consider those kinds of questions so that the swiss court could then review it as it's more of a standard challenge to due process in which then this court could find that despite the label what was just being argued here is that it's it's that that the constitutionally firm structure i'm sorry what's troubling is that i five because you were a lot of cases arising from vietnam and others had risen who were very i don't know and that's really my question i clearly i'm not the expert within this group here today but i might suggest that one of the reasons why you may not see a lot of cases involving folks who are laos and cambodia while spraying was going on for those folks probably entered laos or cambodia from  vietnam and so therefore there would be no question about their already being covered by the presumption of eleven sixteen here what we have is a situation in which an individual was in laos prior to the real hostilities as we know them in vietnam and was removed again prior to those hostilities really being ratcheted up so those folks who had reason to be in laos or cambodia in the sixty five to sixty eight time period manuals we identify specific areas where used including laos including cambodia including thailand and and if you were in one of those areas and can establish that you were exposed although you don't receive the eleven sixteen presumption and you do receive what i'll call evidentiary treatment as part of your direct service claim i don't resolved it could be very similar and in fact it could be very similar in fact but again this is this folks in the blue water outside of vietnam that that was what hasse was all about yes so i was wondering if sitting here today and i recognize that but here i don't believe we have either a basis to extend eleven sixteen or to extend even what v a has been doing as referenced in our brief time he was still part of the general operation which was overseen by the cia and air america so there and in the in the problem facing him of being on this secret mission starting in one nine hundred sixty they were taken out of there they were more they were it was more obvious perhaps after a certain point but they work of the according to this they were they sixty which talks about the above findings are clearly only a partial record herbicide use in laos and cambodia many additional sources remain to be examined many of them classified if the full extent  among these are any and all cia records so it seems like here again that the veteran here is being is having to shoulder the financial consequences of the government decision not to release records even though those even though that decision is justified to withhold those records it shouldn't be it shouldn't be on the the veteran shoulders to to to lose out on benefits score to reach the due process argument here did you in the course of your preparation for argument come across any reason or discussion in the legislative record or anyplace else about why the presumption four it was sort of talked about combat situations it's not technically about the vietnam but it sort of goes to why certain combat types and records would be released and they were talking about how records would be lost  now i suppose the reasoning from when i got is that that's where the most pervasive spraying was but again that doesn't mean that that's where the only spreading was and i think where we have provided documentation of of spring in laos and this is an area of law that's supposed to be you know fifty fiftieth's supposed to go to the veterans so we that we have a factual predicate set here that they were spraying there and we have the government saying you know there's records but we're not going to give them to you so i just think that the argument here is that if they have the records because they oversaw this project so they're going to have the records just like the air force has the records of spraying what in operation ranch in the cia is going to have records our on air america but they're not releasing them and all that falls on the veteran who did he serve he served his country and he should be he shouldn't be penalized because the the mission