i don't know what the record indicates far as the exhaustion of remedies goes i know that it is proper to pursue our remedy in the district court each washing raised it so it  about a quiet environmental regulation of corporate and their dealings with federal highway administration on a complex road structural project in idaho in a town called warren or outside of warranty which is about two hundred miles south of the way i understand the argument against that is that there couldn't have been in the forcible leaned because the judgment was not concrete right there which means that it was encouraged to at least to that extent but  gets to the point about the contingency fee system as a whole if no some is going to be concrete in that situation so essentially by saying undercutting idaho co two three excuse me three to zero five sixty one thousand is that correct correct now could it be argued that part of that was indeed cohen in other words part of that had to do with prior services but the remainder had to do with a percentage of the four hundred fifty thousand is that correct corrects to a point that the money from prior services will still involve the same case almost exclusively your but that was a determine the amount of money you have that there was no question as the argument ever made that at least as to the one hundred thirty seven that was coerced and therefore you don't have the problem that argument is not made because the lien attach a court to that of the statute relates   think that's why i looked at your claim the entire amount was a mix of something that had already been determined and something that was contingent that's correct the problem with the not having a fix incorporate state law up to a degree but it doesn't require a corporate state line as to the question of when the attorneys lean these lean becomes op the timing of the as as opposed to the timing of a tax levy is that for almost two years no notice of a tax liability when done like started representation they had no notice of any tax liability a year and a half later when they filed a claim there was no notice  liability to translates to an example where the attorney took the case with full knowledge of their tax liability it's completely different from the case before this court there was no notice on one of black's part of any liability fall the government's argument essentially asking attorneys to stay away from taking contingency cases of anybody with federal tax liability or might even have any federal tax liability because even if the state statutes go provide you a priority of the government from the job for you every time that's setting a setting a standard the signal to attorneys not to take these kind of cases which gets back to the whole idea of defending this contingent system but it was and you say something about the government having having written the judgement or something to that effect if you want to explain anything i'm not sure i understand your question of planes judgment which is maybe i'm too young to be this cynical but i think there was more going on i think that i had no ability to pay this tax efficient and the i r s knew that the federal highway administration they were representing the united states it's important to understand your honour's of this cases is not a matter of lien priorities simply a matter of application of a set off statute sections thirty seven twenty eight as a condition of the government's waiver of sovereign immunity to suit it provides that any judgment against the government shall be set off a debt owed by the claimant to the government the statute provides no exceptions and in blacks and actual judgement is four hundred fifty thousand dollars in a prime right right ok and that's what we're talking about the four hundred fifty dollars because of the set off statute that four hundred fifty dollars fo come i can't do that belongs to us if they're collecting money that actually is our money now they may be wrong but perhaps that determination jurisdictional question assuming that the government's right to set off somehow or other it has priority over the contention they have that they haven't attorneys lean with respect to the same  now that's the issue we're here to discuss who does have priority word is the idaho statutes fit with respect to this and to the extent that we're talking about at least  portion being coerced why aren't they entitled to the coat question because it's a matter of time first to set off apologize so that there is no recovery and the judge if there is no recovery in the judgment there lean attaches to the recovery treasury because of section thirty seven twenty eight there lean attaches to what if you want to call the judgment that they're lean there's no basis for saying that he would interfere with the operation of section thirty seven twenty eight there's nothing in the statute or something right let's assume for the sake of discussion only that there was no set off on the web site that that was the four hundred fifty thousand along it was as a result of the wouldn't wouldn't they have been idle law based leant on the four hundred fifty thousand which could be enforceable against the government so the government would pay off the lien and then  this is much different than three zero one sixty three twenty three f twenty sample thr by the treasury but there is the four hundred fifty thousand in the treasury that should be remitted the wouldn't the treasury recognize the league and then pay it off directly to the law firm and then w governor that's the really the beginning and the end of these other issues are interesting but they don't affect section thirty seven twenty eight all right not now for the last last quite a few if you don't raise the ever the issue about exhaustion and then arguments wait right if i would never thought i could trial but i don't think i would have legal authority to do that well let's assume that we're talking about the second argument that is that there's thirteen forty six jurisdiction but no exhaustion is the government comfortable with that argument as as an alternate argument that the history of stiction no sauce for the words no exhaustion under seventy four twenty two which of course was not about it not sure i understand the question are we willing to concede jurisdiction to thirty four six they was mayor standing you know with respect to the use you said there were two reasons why thirteen forty six doesn't work we understand your standing argument the other argument is that there was no exhaustion or to the extent there was no exhaustion the government is conceding that at least there's a threshold basis for jurisdiction no these are alternate arguments either walk or stand with all stress rise to the judgment that the case was settled the stipulation of settlement expresso provides that there was no admission of liability they're relying solely on ear eyes allegations that were unproven in there that occasion to prove that trial court level on the fence something that can be waived it has been but to address it i think there's some confusion because seventy four twenty two establishes a condition precedent as far as the liability i just want to touch on that the government terminated representing this company all along had to have known that there were unpaid employment taxes withheld in the premier of the very first tax liens filed august twenty ninth two thousand and three we had our sleeves rolled up and down the block was in this for two years at that point two years and seven months the very first time there think there wasn't a tax judgement until november twenty ninth two thousand