the law absolutely did not require the truck court to look at context evidence before the trial meaning the plain meaning of the language that is shown of pages twenty three and twenty four of the truck court opinion and that's contrary to established for book law in the breached the trust in a way after september thirtieth two thousand and nine so that if you lose on the interpretation of the settlement argument is there still any case here vs two first of all the  the government has a fiduciary duty to have disclosed information under the ship show me a case that justice judge hewitt had established several years ago in a case that's almost all horse at one of the problems there it was that it was a hidden type of client it was a hidden scheme and this complaint goes up to greatly all the hidden nature of that scheme which literally depress the price of the market the government furthermore information they had niger out and the continuing nature of it had not been revealed so yes i think that there is language to that effect and indeed evidence of that fact that clearly racist and apart from that  is there any other argument were there any other family action after september thirtieth two thousand and nine in this case it seems like everything although actual affirmative actions like the i approve all things like that if the other words after two you were saying that post that date in two thousand and nine there was this acquisition by williams of dakota three and some harm that was when claim you in the rumors based on the acquisition seen trying to yeah but the question there and the government well you know i think it's the government's position that you can't use that day because the government had no with already over that acquisition that you are tied to the date in late two thousand  huge the magnitude of the difference between stripper well prices that were paid for this the sort and the fact that these are the literally the richest oil and gas reserves in american history it's just dramat the government knew that and it was a matter of finding them and they were already there is a matter of technology and the government was well ahead of the curve on the one point that technology could they just did not so i would just rolled over and continue case where the folks had been paid brought the interest for years but the government failed to disclose full information that the oil and gas companies were under valuing them that and nevertheless signed a release example in the complaint details about as april of two thousand and twelve one official says expressly said in the government i didn't have time to do anything there was other information that didn't do any due diligence there was absolutely no due of information that was said later after this lawsuit was actually five and after we had had a chance in two thousand and eleven to do the actual due diligence is required after this big sale was announced that was never revealed ahead of time those are factual inquirers the problem here is it's way too premature to come to the decision as a matter of law on those issues ultimately the court after hearing the factual record m decide that maybe these that there was not enough or that enough information was disclosed but it's a heavy argument factual dispute and it's heavily documented in this complaint which really of truth is quite a right going again i don't what i want you to focus on is the date two thousand and three with a law has substantially tightened the requirement of specificity for the asserted duty since the ok argument of the government is what we did have a duty to disclose even though that's a common law thirty the problem is the government did this because they did tell these native americans this is in the best interest of the mineral interest owners like that's why we have ask and rule fifty six whether the government what the government knew what negotiations it had because as i was going to get into on my first  contract section two twelve which is only interpretation of contracts cited approximately four hundred seventy five times by this court in interpret in contracts has paragraph lead or comm description have we as a court said those things it's been tricked the good question you have to follow in metrics and in rocky's let me give you the example of the four types of evidence we're as it here took to isolate a position that lamps meant all items in this big nasa project and the governor said wait a minute we want to go back and look at the context and the negotiations it was found out that the government propose but it was touch it i think my recollection is there's no mention of that in the district court decision there's no mention of the d c circuit decision supreme or denied cert and so that's the end of the matter maybe we can't speculate well what if that issue had been raised but it was both nonono and secondly i think they were in a circumstance a hypothetical circumstance the government had intentionally hidden or kept away information to allow plaintiffs to know that th that there's a definite difference between intentional concealment and i think that that in other words that someone took active measures to not inform someone of information that they and also though my friend alleged in his complaint over several pages how much information there was out there including some information that ms two shields participated in where there was a belief in this area and brief and i don't think that alleged with the kind of particularities which is required for fraud because we would be talking about positive fraud their approaches to more distress the government that they are to allege that the government has been negligent actually i should say for example you're talking about u s g s we're talking about a huge institution somebody who may know something somewhere who has no power to in terms of proving that there are at least if you started off thirty seconds ago by saying we don't now and i think your friend would they are not on the list of people opt out let me just go back again to this duty or our concealment this is an argument that could and should have been raised in to the  want to go to that judge i think it was judge approached asked counsel whether what the government could have disallow out the williams company's acquisition of these leases through its purchase and this is important it purchase of all the code is three asset and the answer is no now this argument was is not addressed in our brief because they never raised it that's why i said he was going to get to the station do it this brief he can't it's not there if you want if you want to hear now  an acquisition of the entire company i could see the argument but again they've never raised this point it's and i believe there are that in fact it's a psych in the appendix lou article it didn't have at issue but settlement agreement approved by congress is that there were three minister process here approved by congress which allowed parties to opt out which was approved by the d c district court and my recollection of that matter if aligned with this court's decision when you actually read it is in line with this court's decision and holding that decisions i should say holding that absent an ambiguity in the language there's no basis for allowing use of extensive evidence and it actually what metric held was that in one of the it held that evidence of a trade practice and that's been one of the few areas that the sport has been willing to go beyond the plate language  think it's right it's more difficult argument a much easier argument is up to now the government the best case is that they can come out up with work from this court which indicate any kind of force so that if it were arguably congress took because as long as you have a mechanism to preserve your planning i don't there can't be a taking there's a taking in these there's arguably a take in these other cases where the government allegedly cuts off your right to recover list claims only that claims that should have been asserted should implies must could in supplies possible and i think that's why these cases along the line of