status is sacred and their existence in the modern day today goes back to a long line of indian ancestors not only an actual and real connection between them and their ancestors and the tribe but also a spiritual relationship with a great spirit and their blood relations what happened here in this action is the very many affairs very just said that yes we determine the membership standards for the criteria of the more town ranch area that had a drastic and every home yes council i thought it was i thought it was the most it was one of the most fundamental principles of tribal sovereignty that tribe is entitle to determine its own membership they're not bound by the constitution because they're a separate domestic dependent sovereign and they're not bound by anything the b s a has no power to determine who is in the tribe and who's had a bit just totally whatever the tribe wants to do and if they want to squeeze out some people perhaps in order to squeeze out some shares and revenue and it's totally unfair and it's guaranteed that the more town or ranch area would be assured of its historical governance when the clock was turned back pursuant to the stipulated judgment a hard case but that is also distinguishing from versus santa clara pueblo i take your point but at the end of the day it isn't what the judge clamshell it's not quite true that if we were to hold in your favor we would basically be saying that tribal sovereignty does not include the ability of a tribe to define its own membership judge the tribe does have that right and we aren't arguing that the tribe and certain instances has a right to define its own membership but here we have report we have the bill that says yes we impose we made the decision for the try to make use this distribution list that we're planning violates the administrative procedures act and therefore isn't that like why isn't that like when france california you should not have a death penalty in california you can say we hear you and we don't agree a judge i agree with that analogy however we're looking at a situation where this case is not a stand alone case like the santa clara pueblo versus martinez we have the element of a federal court stipulated judgment restoring the tribe and we also have the intrusion of the beer been in affairs into the tribal membership during this restoration process the martinez case standing alone would hold that your analogy is correct however in this situation we have factors that were injected in by the federal government that caused severe injury to my clients and their and their alternate disenroll but our failure to become properly enrolled in their trial and we do want to make a very important point here judge we are howard act was established in night by congress in one thousand thirty four and the other howard act granted certain the tribes to become more self sovereign and more self determined if on the other hand that act also as late as one nine hundred ninety four guaranteed all tribes in the nation that they should be able to  right to maintain their existence as a tribe with a government recognized by the united states at all points in time prior determination in one nine hundred sixty four under the california indian rancheria act now what the building  used throughout the record we're going to determine for you what your membership standards will be and they will be consisting of the four original distribute and their lineal descendants and not the original seventy three people who are on the somewhere up a forty eight individual clients and some of them did make public announcements of the tribe they did file appeals and those appeals have been routinely rejected are ignored are just put aside and needless to say  one of the general rules is that federal courts are too willing to not examine and distinguish the martinez case they have allowed many tribes to engage in very abusive very very inhumane activity toward their members and with the tribe expecting that the federal district court and the federal district court of appeals are not going to do anything but say ok martinez the first ascent of our public you're out of here now what federal courts have to do is to look strongly and distinguish the facts in this case with what facts were apparent in the case involving the santa clara in new mexico and what we are arguing we did  is that those factors there are totally different than here and again you have the ingredient the element of federal action that went over the reservation fence and plopped itself right in the middle of the tribe and caused the damage that we're complaining  s attorney for the eastern district of california for the appleby's it's the government's position as expressed in the brief that there is no waiver of sovereign immunity and therefore the motion to dismiss was properly granted there isn't a claim it's a creative way to allege around the sovereign immunity of united states and to try in a case that as a court said initially it's merely a membership challenge which this court has seen most recently in lewis versus norton in which they held that again sovereign immunity applies if there's other specific appeal the standards in which this court must review the complaint is under a standard that looks at what the alleged that complaint is favorable in its review a motion to dismiss and in