that they had so exactly what you would have sold if you sold an easement to someone other than the united states i ate an interest in their land over which they retained a degree of control because they continued to own the syrian estate for years later they find or thirty five years later they find that the united states at the moment it made the purchase intended to treat this land the stress isn't as impressed because our question is a jurisdictional one so let's assume for example if the united states had in fact acquired it as you contend in its own name to begin with do you contend that the united states could not transfer its interests and create on if they did come up with a procedure perhaps it was specially for the california situation where they had precluded buying land interest under the four reservation etc for period of time they did come up with a procedure whereby the united states could could could do that conversion but it required a procedure where other interested parties would have an opportunity to make a case why this should or should not be done what the impact on them would be talk about the fact that there are a whole lot more people traveling down that road or will be at the casino was built than anyone had anticipated but the use of that property itself being that specific property the roads just on top of it sounds like it hasn't changed at all  going to go into trust if you're aware that that means that you have no capacity to talk to the government about their expansion of use you join a different deal and really that's the question is the government have the obligation to talk about it in the branding and if they didn't talk about it the front end and they don't put it on the title ever have they made distressed land in terms of the status the cases talk about or have they for all anything that led up to this these men because that infringes on their rights to be absolutely i mean unless you're going to tell me to shut up i will make a couple of points on that level because like you think that they're important to the way you look at the  united states mind because they didn't say that on the title then the united states that was a breach of their produce your duties and that's the way you look at it now look at in the context if they had purchased the land from these people and then tried to cancel the purchase is whether there's a rational basis for the government assertion that it's being held in trust and whether it's not an arbitrary or frivolous assertion and this case i think that because of the inordinate number of facts supporting that this was a purchase for the native americans it was on behalf of the tribe and under duncan it does not have to be express the idea that it's somehow there's some some shadow on the fact centuries prior to that you trust transfer process so i want to make that point the government's view judge thomas you asked about what constitutes a colorable claim the government's position in this case is supported by the federal  r part one seventy those regulations defining new reservation road as any road that provides access on a reservation or to a reservation and it also requires that indian reservation roads exception the very purpose of that exception is exemplified by this case this is a landlocked reservation and there are some reference in the record to a second access road if you had a four wheel drive in wintertime you could not access the reservation by that road i've looked on the ground you can't find it this is the only means of grass and eat rest of this reservation and if this means that in grass negress could be challenged this tribe would be forever barred from engaging in any economic development activity on its reservation and that would be directly contrary to congress policies that's why we need this kind of exception in quite a title act may i ask a practical question it seems to me approached their neighbors early on in this process when i read my story it out and the door has always been open on the trial side and if if the court thinks the circuit mediator might be of assistance we would gladly participate in that  becomes whether ancillary rights can be foreclosed by that fact very different from this case duncan yes no one disagrees the united states can develop trust rights by the nature of them as the as the government and the trustee and the in the indians as the trust or and the award there's no question about that can they digest their people and rights by the nature of that relationship and that duty