and again that's just one prong one requirement that what it meant to transfer this these funds under the development construction agreement for the actual silty there was also a provision that said that the facility had to start up and begin again you say it didn't operate or didn't operate effectively with the courts that the reason it didn't operate was not because it wasn't fully funded of course but because they just weren't able to do the job properly which is something percent of that capacity in a total now even assuming for the sake of argument the room to agree with you on that you that still have to demonstrate that the effect of this lack of adequate funding was to rescind the transfer of the technology and the language seems to say not that this was certainly a provision but that if the funding fails the property of the technology will be to consider something operational i would argue that it means that you get a consistent product over and over that simply wasn't the case nor is don hall testify was there anybody out there to run it they didn't have any clients they were getting paid a large sums to produce on a commercial scale and the most this facility ever produced in one year was about three percent of its operational capacity and we just differ with the district court you want to save your circuit to judicial notice of an independent commission report that did investigation of the conduct of various city police departments in los angeles but it is but it isn't a correct the new online different notice relates to nineteen twenty two was on a tuesday i mean that's that's something take two different matters ok there's no dispute about it but if the question was how much someone  earth from the practice of the profession are in a particularly here and somebody says well here's a report showing this in the fellow says no i don't i learned a lot more than that i don't see that we could take additional notice of that as being a they sent marketing literature out providing operating profit based on operations of the plant so when it suited them to claim that the plant was operational and and had been funded in the to the point where they could start it up and get reliable figures from  do to be operational is a hope or an aspiration the fact that they started up it wasn't as good as they thought it would be doesn't mean that it was an operation the fact of the bigger problem why the business fell was not lack of money but the location and the fact couldn't get customers and finally even if the amount of funding you know that wouldn't show you did it for the fact is that the language some money doesn't give ownership rights which are necessary for them to have standing doesn't give it back  so we think that clearly the district court's decision with regard to the funding in their lack of standing to bring their state law claims and their claims was correct as we discussed in a brief there are additional reasons chose not to address whether the herring because the difference between between taking license to drop our lessons and taking assignment to an exclusive lessons is immaterial so that the existence of the the the hershey so whether or not there was a dispute and the license was in mr bridges reinstated is a roll and finally most importantly the license was not cancelled and then reinstated the