by way of adding four different court opinions to get a final judgment and it began with a motion for judgment on the pleadings which is supposed to consider the fa difficult to work through a ten year case with the record identifying that everybody agrees that the alabama to shuttle tribal town was entitled to this eight hundred and seventy eight point two five acres and hughes county oklahoma to have the courts and everybody ignore all that and through procedural matters and looking at fact in my opinion more favorable to the federal government and  give them their day in court and so let's go back to that first decision from that first decision we have the trial court making four decisions first they decided that the case was forty six or one hundred forty one you should have recognized that the deed was wrong the problem isn't that you have to look at the lay of the land at that point in time and in that point in time under the law can do is sign whatever the federal government wired he put in front of him so to say that the creek nation was actively involved or that some claim arose back in this point in time it's difficult to imagine an addition you expressly choose not to challenge that ruling which means that ruling stands and as a pelleas argue we we can simply choose to rely on that and affirm based on that  good basis for ruling well i think that that you have to understand what the trial court made in that ruling the trial court made that ruling based on and i have taken for its word on any other when it said that you can't sue the seeking in the complainants in to refer to anyway i mean i think yes i'm not understanding in the government doesn't seem to it seems a bit confused by your distinction here you seem to be saying now well we weren't seeking any restricted indian lands right now that that's a government that is an attack on the government ownership of the land we're not attacking the government's ownership of the land after this case the land will still remain owned by the government the issue your you're conflating is trying to attack the title to the land itself which is a quite final action seeking reformation or other thing and seeking the government to perform an understand that the history of this all throughout the one hand is that the trauma that impact the united states interest in the not really is the nicest still in a home that the united states still has a management authority over it they still have all the trust responsibilities actually cites in their brief and there they actually have a letter and you thousand and five which we cite in our case which talks about that there's competing claims now between the two tribes and that the united states needs come to any result that some exceptions that we've tried on numerous occasions and they've died work or been left alone and making a decision that that's what we're seeing here is with respect to the can't start assuming other facts that that are in the record at that point and lock us down into this original deal and this original issue so again we will go forward to the does now that neither party said they wanted a hearing but at the same time i've had that happen in a ball most every case i mean i think there's not an ambiguous contract on the planet the coins any attorney on either side facts are there are and that's where the court  the your plight were not organized in any proper way nor did they have the legal standing or authority apparently to assert the claim that is about attempted to be well i think what i'm saying is the alabama shot i mean the federal government recognized historically at that point time they were not working nice enough to manage i think that's in the record and then on top of that and the that way so after that then all the land is used for the benefit of the tribe i mean they want to get your alabama shot a try they get the benefit from the money they get the benefit of the usual way and they have a committee that votes on the property and all of this hundred seventy s is when the creek nation is than recognized him so they're actually not recognized one hundred eighty and there's an issue which the government is actually researching at this time and stating that they haven't figured out who owns what at that point and so they're in there and there's plenty in the record that shows they're going back and forth on this issue it's not until the one nine hundred eighty s which is which then biz when the first resolution from the creek nation comes over to the its members who were physically possessing the land or working the land and after that and muskogee creek nation to control room and the record shows a rana of their own agricultural operation for some years on that land for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the town for their own benefit but sheep in mind that the tribal town has members who were able to obtain dual citizenship in the muskogee creek nation as well so to the extent that they can obtain services and benefits through the muskoka trick nation as well as through the tribal town to separate tribes the benefits would indirect flow to them and that's really the rationale why this land was held in this in this fairly and i'm going to say unique arrangement you need to the tribal towns and the creeks in oklahoma but you know the creek nation was that united states has long held relations with that trauma from the early eighty's hundreds at least and didn't and knew how to deal with them but it also was in the process of assimilating the creek nation into the united states is its history and that was you know the policy of that era that policy changed over time and now we seventies but you know this is a historical anomaly and but it wasn't irrational that's the point is even if it were later for held to be not the correct way that the creeps view their society and their citizens or the way that the us government has plans and all of this and we're talking about the claim rather than whether it's correct or out of that they've never made the decisions that were discuss happened in seems to me that you know one express direction by appearing here and aligning yourself with the muskogee nation but we were sued for preaching our trust to the united states to sue for preaching denial but there's a letter from october ninety six in the supplemental appendix i can give you the site it is a letter to both tribes from the secretary of interior to the mid ninety's this is after numerous petitions if they've asked several point hand they they cited it's a host of factors that apply to acquisitions of trust land within an existing reservation and for purposes of oklahoma that includes former reservations which is helping out of  but there are indications that this is the secretary of the interior personnel were trying to set up meetings try to resolve this in a way where everybody can usually agree to some things just as there was mutual agreements in the land arrangements in the one nine hundred forty s i mean our president is your point acquired would apply and would would require the nation to say yeah they treat nation down in response to that october ninety six letter passed the resolution saying now but then they passed it and that was contrary to the resolution that they passed in with with counsel's james about the quiet title act not applying because he's not challenging the governments in this essentially it's not adversarial towards the government but we think our position is that it does apply here the nice thing w and if it had been fully briefed in that way and we could have addressed those arguments squarely it wasn't briefed below in that way either why don't i mean i didn't see them the true ai but you know them i was in this very short paragraph in the district court's ruling and they didn't they did not appeal it  but i'm wondering if you really are really truly asserting that the quiet town lacked somehow barnes what we are we are certain that we did a sort of alone is what is your argument  for that so the quiet title x ought to be construed as it includes a waiver of sovereign immunity in favor of the government's right an exception for indian lands or for ought to be interpreted broadly to include i mean  prison officer soothe essentially asking for mandamus asking for a federal officer to do something and saying well that's not really a quiet title action as we're not suing the sovereign we're just asking the court to compel an officer of the united states to do something about the land about the title and the  the indian lands exception when really what they're doing is challenging how the government holds title not the government's interest as a fiduciary but the government's role in with respect to the beneficial indian tribes and i would like to leave i've nation a sovereign tribe of as we stand here today approximately eighty seven thousand of that number a subset of political subdivision of that number albeit a federally recognized tribes themselves are also fully one hundred percent muskogee creek citizens and so we believe that given a point a pub citizens have earlier that may have been the case to some degree i can stand here though and tell you each the identity of each person i think that's been lost history with regard to who actually worked that harshaw but i can tell you  for the larger citizenship or i respectfully disagree i believe that the that the one instance that is an example of what the circumstances  travel down the federal recognized also those as and says a great nation for whatever reason that assignment of beneficial hisle was made with respect to their parse it was not all that goes to the beneficial interest isn't of much use if it's eighty seven people against a thousand and eighty thousand at least that's what the issue is m m e i guess i'm just still on the land and they muskogee creek nation does run some cattle on the land but out of beyond that it's not being used for any further economic development group in my opinion any tribe then again that's one of the merits which i think is what we're trying to get accomplished here we have a comment here that the going to create a nation alabama shot a tribal town that same thing well they're not because the federal government says they're not and at some level we have to respect the federal government decision on that the federal government to change their opinion they certainly can they have yet to do so in eighty years  hues county as you can see the sort of history on this property is yes it is now it is and yes it is now it isn't and that has continued throughout history u the nation at the united states that they have yet to write anything that says somebody owns this other than and this litigation when they finally said well maybe the sony creek nation doing so we would ask this court