the treaty was signed i believe that we have to look at the provisions of the treaty which is what this court said in the case of hair versus us when they were addressing the clearly with japan that the provisions of the treaty have to be examined to shut down that validation board so there was no recourse for the american want holders to validate in the us anymore and they were forced to and when was the board dissolved nineteen sixty nine hundred sixty sort of treaty the  because it deprives individuals bondholders of their legal rights and their right to full compensation for their boss and and this happened and the other courts that i've been in that you present your claim you're s across the street from j p morgan well i was not i was not born at the time i was born in sixty seven as well that's part of your problem yes you had at the time when you would be taking you didn't have him and you have a judgment which you have to wait a while doing work yes but the problem is you kind of doesn't affect you or your ability to perfect the interest by getting the judge present cause of action present so that's the situation out so you could sue me for correct i have a long validated bond i can sue but i have no right to obtain relief so there's two points in the cr three when the united states and germany had turned it into this bilateral treaty the purpose of which was to bring about some certainty with respect to these german bonds and he is pointing to the treaty itself he does so in his brief as well as his complaint pages five misplaced for that the reason that the bondholders and that the other circuits that have addressed these claims brought by these on validated bondholders have rejected the argument that he's making here today that the notion that holders of these bonds that have failed to validate them in a timely way were not precluded from bringing some claim against germany at an earlier date in the in the world holdings cade's case in particular the eleventh circuit rejected the argument that the so called non scenting bond holders those are the ones you would not want to go through this validation process rejected the notion that they were somehow couldn't bring their lawsuit before twenty time and in particular here as the trial court properly recognised he is conflating a cause of action against germany with a cause of action against the united states are true obviously very separate things of it to the studies alleging to taking and at this point i know there's likely some inconsistency if he's alleging  for the reasons i just went through but the the court in the corporate case in the seventh circuit in which mr abbas was counsel did address the time and its problems and noted that that these claims prophets and validated bondholders could have been brought decades ago and that the there were this is in the seven circuits language and it was an attempt to circumvent the requirements under the treaty so i respectfully disagree with this characterization of the treaty itself for clued him somehow from bringing this cl ron i do we do disagree with that proposition i don't think that the the notion that he has these are bearer bonds that do typically give ownership rights to the person who possesses them but the mere fact that that is the nature of it's finally surface after all these years well your honor that doesn't get to the treaty itself and that the treaty did establish mechanisms for this validation process that were the cause the treaty parties contemplated a short term process for the validation procedures to unfold and it phased out this validation for the united states in one nine hundred sixty but but the these are all of these bonds were issued between world war one and world war two so there's no question that that bondholders had to come forward and validate their bond but the notion that he's arguing today i do want to emphasize is the notion that the court should examine to justify this particular requirement is problematic for a number of reasons number one as the court recognised political question doctrine was implicated involving the settlement of claims against the government of iran and also those as far as takings are are concerned he cannot show that he he had in his work a legitimate investment back right while certainly the court would be it within its purview to affirm on these alternative grounds in the government's position is shouldn't reach the merits of the takings issue which he has it raised in his brief as an alternative basis we would we respectfully ask the court to affirm on that basis as well but your honor is correct in terms of the self executing treaties and mr abbas as he has referred to this doctrine and it is something somewhat of a complex doctrine but his argument seems to be that if the treaty he seems to be trying to to support an argument that he wants the court to find that the united states is somehow breached the treaty and again that's problematic not only because it's inconsistent with the notion of bringing a takings claim but it does ask the court to inquire into the very essence of the treaty itself which was a again a sort of a political judgment that this would be a way to resolve these claims with germany in terms of a bilateral treaty and the court a federal claims does not have jurisdiction as we pointed out in my brief to examine created a mechanism for certain one holders who wanted to validate and get lower payments to go with german system the others wanted for pay and then have to wait in line and their claims were suspended for decades for sixteen years i have a client who's over eighty years old she's almost ninety interested in reading all her life to get her bonds redeemed all she wanted to do was go to j p morgan present her bonds and these treaties are blocking her come soon j p morgan and from sol germany they've taken away her rights she's presented ones in germany and they told her we're not going to validate thank you very much that said so this treaty wants to send people to drammen and germany doesn't want to validate ones so deprived of their claim so saying release until after two thousand and ten