pretty precedent to say can a person still go up through the procedure mechanism through district court through hay vs and so there was nothing really there and so it was unclear and so being m that you know you should go to the district the state district court and he really well i think i think the teacher probably referring to he could probably answer that question regarding that i think that it's imperative and that's part of the argument is that it there to look at the look at this order and i think the one case is very instructive on this on this case is your green they please the court i suspect that one of the reasons that the question has not been certified in our request for certification is in fact that the petitioner will be released on september eleventh and as a result because this is a parole state parole issue the entire case with them become moot and so there wouldn't be anything to to raise i factor because our supreme court generally doesn't meet or there are a large in the summer generally there are exceptions i suspect they wouldn't hear this case in to the state k b s act changed anything as far as lindquist mojave barlow was the very very early case in other words nothing changed now having said that that was of course our state appeal a state overcome that particular presumption there's anything unique about the language that was used in this case as far as you know absolutely none your honor in fact i did go back and have in front of me and would certainly be willing to supplement or move to augment the record if necessary after argument the order from the lindquist opinion and they used the exact same language and interestingly enough there is a member former member of the i host of time court in the in the audience today and he could tell you that the same language is used has been used for years that language that point is fully inviting after due consideration and being fully advised in the premises that is the exact language that was used in lindquist that's the exact language that was used in this case yes your honor that  i don't believe as i said that the issue of well actually it goes like this what we have is a situation where it can't be amended under the new statute but had they raised the argument that it could be raised in a court the state constitution that was not correct and because parrott did not raise the state constitutional issue the issue as to whether it could be amended under the state constitution he didn't raise the rates you don't raise you the statute or the contras you said i want  well your honor my hockey wasn't and i'd ha supreme court decision parent was a court of appeals decision where the question was not directly raised it was addressed raised in the context of a motion to amend it was not raised in the context of whether there is a constitutional right to raise the issue before in fact a constitutional duty to raise the issue before the district courts of idaho that's  think in your honor sir appreciate this i just like to point out i think that at the time that this petition was razor for in supreme court is that at that time there was extraordinary circumstances to take this up to the supreme court at the time mainly because there was not any case law  to bring this case or the district court i think being that consider the case that the presumption would be that the supreme court it take this case on the merits i think linguist linguist canvas thinks it can be distinguished mainly because of the pre nine hundred ninety nine statute presents the question of whether a federal district court can order ecru over leaf against a federal agent in the face of the expressed terms of the federal statute my name is robert manning i represent the palin and and i would like to reserve five minutes of time for rebuttal we have two appeals today one on the denial of intervention to my client below and one from the merits of the judgment and i would like to turn first to the issues that go to the merits of the judgment in a bow and there are three parts to my argument the first is that this court's prior decision in the kimberley case didn't resolve the issues before the court on this appeal did not dictate the entry of judgment second then  appropriate and the only damage the only remedy available to kimberly is money damages let me ask you this what after that or pinioning kimberly one