our next case will call the next case united industrial service transportation professional and government workers of north america international union on behalf of ernest bacon versus the government of the virgin islands to do make sure you speak into the microphone yes i discovered yesterday with the height of the ceiling thanks sticks aren't the best and i tend to be soft spoken so i'll make a recently passed away i believe this past september after this case has been fully briefed however in december of twenty eleven he had already been reinstated to his position as an assistant attorney general with the department of justice and it's important to this court recognize that before this court before the supreme court of the virgin islands before the superior court and the arbitration it has always been the union who's been the representative or the party it's the union that has an independent duty to litigate on behalf of the broader class of members and this case the assistant attorneys general and regardless of the passing of attorney base in the union still has an interest and advocating on behalf of its members particularly since the supreme court rendered an opinion that essentially perhaps it's the reinstatement of any wrongfully discharged assistant attorney general and additionally this case is it moved because on the man the government has argued that considering that attorney base and can be reinstated to his employment he's also not entitled to back wages at no point in any of these proceedings have the merits of this case been overturned therefore attorney baseness still entitled to some remedy and there is case law that supports the proposition that back wages and reinstatement are inextricably intertwined of boarding the marriage for second we do not enter orders the courts don't enter orders which are our have don't being there's no the issue before this court is whether you should be in state my client but the broader issue is whether assistant attorney general our entire are intitled excuse me to reinstatement period and the opinion of the supreme court of the virgin islands for quolls that it said considering that assistant attorney general are entitled to unionize the arbitrator could not and the superior court could not have ordered that attorney base and be reinstated as the issue narrow issue unions have the right to advocate on behalf of the broader interests of their members therefore i issue here are the rights of attorney base and yes the court has seen that but also of all assistant attorney general similarly situated to him before his passing therefore considering that the union has that right and is the exclusive representative of those members the issue reinstatement is still alive case a concept so you want to hear this case and not determine whether or not your client should be reinstated or not but you determine what the rights of the union your honor we'd like you to determine both the rights of the union which is in fact the appellant before this court and whether think that the court would have granted search your i yes your honor i believe that the court would have had to because again it's the union who is the real party in interest here and the second factor is that the attorney bas honor doesn't make review of the decision below unnecessary in this case and likewise again when you have a union advocating it's not only be specific interest of attorney base and but it's the fact that all of the assistant attorney generals have lost an expectation interest that they've had and being able to be reinstated if they are in fact wrongfully discharge and that remains live in a valid issue before this court it's not just an advisory opinion that we're seeking your honor at the time he died he had an issue that he had a right to see right at the time he died there was a question as to whether or not he had a right to be reinstated correct yes ok and if he did have a right to be reinstated he then could have been entitle to some back yes your honor and concerning attorney basins entitle me to back pay it's clear that search you are a jurisdiction yes your honor the congress said don't go to the third circuit anymore you get to go right to the united states supreme court but the question is when did congress say don't go to the third circuit anymore and h r sixty one sixteen said that it applies as of the day that it is an act into law to cases commenced after the date th has the authority to appoint and remove executive branch employees except as otherwise provided by an act of congress or by the virgin islands code accordingly there are two islands code that address the issue as it concerns this case the first is title three section one thirteen eight which provides that the governor may appoint and remove assisted attorneys general and that he may have an apartment such assistant attorney general as he deems fit the second provision is title seventy four title twenty four section three seventy four a that provides that assistant attorney general i'm sorry prize a certain executive restricted by law yes your honor and that is the manifest error of the virgin islands supreme court essentially read those words out of the statute a statute that provides that the head of the executive branch can had this expectation of just causing move all pursuant to power which this court held in martina's sends modified section eleven of the virgin islands code and section three start title three section fo fifty one a of the virgin island code explicitly sets forth which employees are entitled to for cause terminations under power and in section four fifty one we find exempted only the first and second assistant attorney general all over assistant attorney generals are entitled to protection by just cause terminations and by collective bargaining if that significant  file attorney general if one look at what he can't file rank and file attorney general if you look at the parties collective bargaining agreement it does provide the attorney general the deputy attorney general the solicitor general and or no your honor because section one thirteen eight and section three seventy four do not cover the same employees section three seventy four is specific and stating which employees are and which are not and the excuse me the employees who are covered or those who are either in the a policy making position there are judges members of the judiciary branch of government it's very specific but when we look at title three section four fifty one a which actually in schedule a sets for specific employees who are in our coverage it's clear that the legislature consider that it looked at th the partment of justice which was then called the department of law and it provided that only the first in the second assistant attorney generals were not covered by power let's put it this way on the one thirty day you say this collective act not at all your honor it's my position that unless the inlets paul wrote allows those positions to collectively bargain it would not supersede those provisions of the virgin islands terminations where it says except as otherwise provided by congress or by the virgin islands code and it would super c section one thirteen a not only because it's later  but because one thirteen a is not a specific restriction on power power explicitly provides the employees that are covered the attorney general first of all couldn't be in the same bargaining group as the assistant attorney general that's clear from the terms of power and once the assistant attorney generals do collectively bargain pursuant to power they're entitle to be covered by just cause terminations they bargain for a just cause terminations the governor signed off on a collective bargaining agreement it's an expectation interest is assistant attorneys general so high for many years to the extent that prior to the enactment of power the collective bargaining agreement was actually and acted into legislation by the legislature it's only that it's only subsequent to the in arkansas of power in one thousand nine hundred eight that it become and thus it became necessary to do so therefore the clip of bargaining agreement that the parties have who absolutely does governor terms and conditions of their employment and supersedes any other provision to the contrary unless it's a specific restriction there is nothing in section one thirteen a that provides successors are appointed and confirmed by a newly elected governor if a newly elected governor doesn't appoint and confirm a new a successor assistant attorney general then the sitting assistant that a sitting governor cannot remove an assistant attorney general who he appointed but even if it's the court's position that my analysis does read out those words it's equally true that section one thirteen eight  assistant attorneys general section one thirteen a would apply to what is identified in the us section four fifty one a as the first and second assistant attorneys general whereas the rank and file system attorney general will be covered by good morning your honor as may please the court my name is just bring up and i represent the respondent in this matter the virgin islands government department of justice the same request you have us bring out make sure you speak into the mi this good ok the issues that i will argue are whether the whether the court has jurisdiction due to the passage of h r six one one six second whether this court has jurisdiction due to the fact that the petitioner has filed this petition on an order that's not final third whether the supreme court of the virgin islands committed manifest error and fourth whether this issue is due to the two twenty six and revise the organic act this strip this court of jurisdiction over the supreme court's of the virgin islands final decisions and allow directory view to the united states supreme court  well this court in kendall vs daily news of the virgin islands and publishing company provided two meanings of the words case commenced the narrow meaning which means that petitions file after the decision of the supreme court of the virgin islands however if you look at the korean amended statute of the revised organic act it provided that this court would have jurisdiction over decisions by the by the virginal and supreme court for the first fifteen shipment and then the judicial council of this court would review the supreme court of the virgin islands every five years to determine whether it has established institutional traditions to allow the rectory view prior to that fifteen year mark upon amending the revised organic act the arm of the language after provided which provides this court with fifteen years jurisdiction was removed congress's intent was to allow direct review as soon as the supreme court of the virgin islands had established sufficient standards it also revised title twenty eight section one twelve sixty of the u s court which provided that the supreme court of the united states would have to recreate view of the united states for a while and supreme court decisions therefore if we look at the decision of the supreme court of the however the appellant filed this petition with this court on january twenty fifth two thousand and thirteen approximately twenty days after the signing of that bill to use a broader definition court is whether or not the supreme court committed manifest error in finding that the two statutes cannot be harmonised this determination would determine whether assistant attorney general or any space and can be and therefore there is no final order to be appeals from volage that if you are prevail on your argument there is no there's no federal issue involved anymore did but if we decided getting out to the moon is a question if if if there was a decision that the arbitrator was correct then make any before i make a marriage determination we have to see whether we have jurisdiction correct if a case is moot there is no jurisdiction he is correct courts courts don't give orders that are can't be carried out correct this court has to does not have a katydid and therefore while the union has an interest in resolving a assistant attorney general basins issue in this case the union has the opportunity to file arbitrations and and suit before the court for any other assistant attorney general this case was filed on behalf of assistant attorney general be sent only therefore they have this doesn't preclude the the union from filing subsequent suits pertaining to two other assistant attorney generals in terms of movements the change of circumstances renders this case moved in mcallister vs as tony general of the united states this court this court  the united states supreme court has i'm sorry this court found that the change in circumstance such of the death of the party seeking relief prevents this court from making that decision and because there is no case of controversy that exists in addition while there is an exception to the moon this doctrine it does not apply in this case that exception is capable of repetition yet evading review and it provides it provides that the challenge action was in its to relation to short to be fully litigated and second that this same complaining party will be seeking similar relief in the future this exception does not apply to this case the parties in this  to fully arbitrary and litigate this matter secondly due to the passing of assistant attorney general beason it is not possible for him to be terminated or seek reinstatement from this point forward  in reference to the issue that was granted cert by this court the appellate contends that the supreme court of the virgin islands did not commit manifest error when it ruled that title three section one thirteen of the virgin islands cord and title twenty four section three seventy four of the virgin islands code could not be harmonized again the definition of manifest error is not just this court simple disagreement with the supreme court's decision nor is that the position that this court would have taken i made a different interpretation if you want to tell you that your backup argument your first argument is that we don't hear the case we dismissed the appeal  lines as the argument on no error your backup argument or is it a or does it come before the boot argument jurisdiction is the primary argument that this disagrees is whether this court finds that the supreme court of the virgin islands ignored the plain text of the statute said in question here or whether there was some blatant error and there is no evidence of such the statute one section one thirteen a provides that the governor has the right to appoint assistant attorney generals and remove those assistant attorney generals at the end of his term unless he chooses to remove them sooner section three seventy four it provides a public employers can negotiate with exclusive representatives for certain terms of employment such as rates of hours and salaries on less otherwise specifically restricted by law are as justice fisher earlier stated that restriction prevents assistant attorney generals from this explanation the governor has the right to remove assistant attorney generals and as the supreme court of the virgin island stated the two statutes cannot be harmonized due to the fact that the governor's rate is without cars while the right under the contract is with ca therefore the the this court should affirm the supreme court's decision in conclusion this this court no longer has jurisdiction for a number of reasons first this court lacks jurisdiction because the petition was filed filed in an order that was not final and thirdly last restriction because this court does not have the authority to issue advisory decisions saying that this  affirm the supreme court's decision because it did not commit manifest error it is not whether this court disagrees or would rule in an in an opposite direction or a slightly different interpretation it is more an internal consistency thank you definition of cases commence that she brought up kendall however this case is governed by it's hard online section line and the anomaly that would result by applying any other day to the commencement of this case then filing in superior court is that the supreme court of the original islands rendered its opinion on november twenty sixth two thousand and twelve sixty one sixteen was and acted on december twenty eighth time twelve so will the union have ninety days from november twenty six prior to and sixty one sixteen was active or would have ninety days from december twenty eighth thirty two days after the time to appeal began either construction would require sixty one sixty two a part retroactively which just contrary to it on its face second is that the governor is right to remove is not absolute again we have to look at wh attorneys generals are covered by one thirteen a and which are covered by three seventy four only the attorney general the solicitor general and other such high ranking officials continue to be governed by one thirteen a but consistent with such an eleven and the revised organic back rank and file assistant attorney generals are covered by section three seventy four and subsequently excuse me this court can continue to provide  reinstatement and that's in expectation interest that the parties had when they entered into their collective bargaining agreement and when these proceedings were began and finally i'd like to  address the issue excuse me that attorney spring that raised well in muncie where and she explained or she was arguing i'm sorry that this case a sorry mcallister where  advocate on behalf of its members so again i would like to ask the panel to find that it does have jurisdiction over this case that the supreme court of the virgin islands did commit manifest error and completely erasing section four fifty one a from the virgin islands code and ignoring the language and section eleven of the rise organic act it says except as otherwise provided by congress or the virgin islands code and by even a sing the words specific exception from such and three seventy four a and again i'd also like to ask the panel to find in this case is not thank you