smearing of dave shears name it's about the state department send it written notices to dave shears suppliers and competitors in the united states and south africa that imply that dave shear has somehow opponents are asking for is due process a chance to clear their name and so we have three types of claims at issue one has to feel we have and the stigma plus jurisdictional boundaries borders the court this court is looking to the substantial i'm sorry you significant voluntary connections test of purdue gort he does as well as the functional approach of  your fleet case as well as the national council for reasons not iran which recognizes that having a property interest in united states or contracts commitments in united states tempi sufficient to establish can go after that and they have done that and we cite a case in your honor of the released where the state department went after an australian an austrian so i wish that austrian non resident never stepped foot in the u s before this case before their case well the state department can require that the sheer summit itself to its jurisdiction jurisdiction of us lost well to it and make a certification that their hell to under federal law that they won't be transferred they won't divert these items scope the actions by mistake go well beyond a case by case licensing decision now whether you want to call it the bar meter suspension that is not authorized by the provisions they cite and it's a penalty that the department state's own website the any order from this port will not impact the those proceedings we maybe not to feed in the ministry process and never get a license but if we succeed my clients are surely want to be able to apply for a license and get a fair shake  know i'm sorry or might not in fact of life another life well your honor there are some things that have happened since this action has occurred which are outside the scope of the record and but as far as whether there is some claim in this case in which is undeniably acquired here and has the question is whether there was a department or something that gave rise under the regulations to  applications yes rodan and most of these types of department cases the government stands behind the bar someone if you look at the government contract basis that's the common thing we in the parliament but the court looks the practical and legal effects of hundred and forty two thousand and seventeen they granted over sixty licenses in some cases they did have a day or basically a day really short processing just all the sudden beginning in early august of two thousand nine hundred they stop processing the licenses and then derogatory nature and how it is being shared with the department commerce is publication you actually like dealers located in south africa in a series of adjudications the department undetermined to deny the applications based on a determination that doing so would be in furtherance of world peace or of national security or foreign policy the united s if that information were to change in the future those decisions could reach different results and i think it's important to clarify for the court as well so there's been a lot of discussion today about department of the plaint a broker there are many activities that are implicated by a department decision but haven't submitted evidence that you know that these unreliable recipient of terminations mean that they can't undertake these other activities so they're trying no longer alive or recipient leaves out the presumption thing when she says she didn't mean that isn't a determination of their status that they're not and it's not another if this is not a determination that asked this particular license they're going to sell when change it by a thing happening in the future because that's not what it's based on again your honor it could depend on if you know the information that the statement based determination on changed that would be one basis that it could change in the future but but going back to what i was trying to clarify before because you know really because a entity has been determined to be unreliable to be doesn't mean they can't do any of the other procedures but it doesn't provide those procedures for foreign end users so for companies in other countries they are seeking to be the purchasers it doesn't provide those procedures for those for those and users i think it's important to in mind as well what this new area is here these are foreign end users and the foreign countries south africa who are interested in and attempting to a traffic in arms for purposes of profit and courts have consistently that this case is about arms dealers located in a foreign country who are seeking to you know import goods from the united states to their country and so it's the extent that there are questions of due process that come countries so my understanding your honor is that the department has in the past barred end users and when it has done so  users who are seeking to traffic in foreign arms for purposes of profit we would say are so marginally related to the interests of congress and passing the a t c a that they were not intended to of items that are an issue in this case was transferred from the department of state to the part of commerce so if in the future plaintiffs you know sought to export the sorts of items that are at issue in this case it's response about license when they grant it will stay cool you can go do it just we want to let you know i'm just two paragraphs on there they call out the next year they say that you can send the that's all they guess they could submit information that goes up the chain to the director maybe to the pm or secretary but that's all they get there's no notice they don't know what to respond to there's no process there's no impartial administrative law judge that is all including the part and twenty