case history shows that the ninth circuit has been very generous to bill if you know war veterans and the congress has been just as vigilant in tightening the laws to make it harder for us  grant the relief that you seek but i kind of want to bring you right to the heart of this thing which was the hardest part of the case for me assuming that your client honorably performed military service on behalf of the united states during the japanese occupation of the philippines as i read the one nine hundred ninety seven amendments to section oral part of the law is very clear that his name isn't on the approved list we can't grant him the relief and the supreme court has told us that time and again and reversing our equitable efforts to grant relief in these really heartfelt cases how do we get around the law and the we can grant him the relief is through some sort of interference equitable already which i think the supreme court told us we no longer have in these cases is there some other way you can suggest how we might be able to give you the relief then we need a some sort of in the case of an african claiming to have served the philippines or any other component we need some sort of a sort of occasion for the united states executive department or successor the and that existed during that time period which is the philippine complement ask you know to allow you to go back that's how i read that you know maybe i'm not reading  extended component described and i and i know maybe i'm pushing the language too hard and i can i confess this is a very hard case because i think the sympathies of my circle have been and continue to be  so so i think that reading might stay the live as a permissible reading but the question remains for me even if that is a permissible reading and i am not sure that it is even if that's remember reading we need something out of quote the united states executive department or a successor there to that that that line would have trouble turning into a philippine executive department it's the same as i'm tempted to read that even if i can get so harsh to say he comes within which personal service shall be jaded about in the army says united states to me in the army we've got a little problem with or even of that's right on merrill which we thought that might mean well ok please the court my name is jeffrey bernstein and i represent the government given counsel's argument were in a kind of a strange place because she was centrally made and new arguments and a new claim which has never been presented to the agency and certainly wasn't presented to the district court if as i read her argument she concedes that if mr by is claiming guerrilla service which is the only service he claimed before the ministry of agency and the record reveals that's correct now opposing counsel brings up a totally different portion of the statute and a totally different basis for naturalization i think she's precluded from doing so before  that's where the arguments go you know your honor i don't think there's any room for a rematch and the district court judge based on the claim before it before him made the right decision other composite of united states armed forces in the far east there's there you know this is all new to me i mean it's not new i'm familiar with the statute but i certainly am not familiar i wasn't prepared to be committed to discuss that today me individuals who served within the philippine army mr baez never claimed that individuals who served as guerrillas that is the basis of mr s i want to say to you i understand fully or point about not raised below and pursuing this for the moment i and then i those are not necessarily compliments within the meaning of triple i that is to say i  can answer your question except to say that the question you're asking is not before the court but i can't i can't conceive of any situation where this court would have jurisdiction to take action based on this brand new claim which was never been part of a naturalization application and then after and the time for piling these naturalization applications as long passed i can't imagine this court  having any basis to take any action with respect to this brand new claim your honor i'm happy to brief the issue if you like with respect to what what this means  i have to be honest with you i'm not prepared to discuss it today because i haven't thought about it i mean i'm familiar with the statute because i've worked with it for a while but i haven't supported that issue for about three years but i mean it seems again i can't stress this anymore that i can't conceive of any basis upon which this court can take any action with respect to this new allegations the only allegation before the court again is the allegation that  as just common indicated that these three branches of the statute are completely different inseparable and i think that's that's what i'm saying to a guerilla and he's not on the list he can't then pop down to cripple like congress certainly couldn't have intended that you know when it tightened up the statute in response to our marrow it certainly couldn't have been the case certainly couldn't intended that a person claiming either philippine army service or philippine guerilla service could get in through a back door i don't know what else philippines to the japanese there was organized guerrilla activity and the guerrillas fought alone against the japanese and and fought in fight with american forces in the japanese they were not part of the united states army they are as the statute makes clear there are three separate components that the statute is dealing with the philippine army the final roster prepare the guerrillas and that was one of the prime primary reasons for the act was to again overcome this court's ruling omero the philippine records can be could be used and it was to make clear that transferred from the united states army to the philippines i that i don't think there are there is any so you know even if we get so far as to make the determination whether or not it's reasonable that she's  le she's there there's certainly no evidence there's no evidence in compliance with the statute there's no certification which is this is required and i take it that the reference to camp and i can't and what happened in this case was perfectly compliant with that on their own even if it wasn't you don't have the equitable power to naturalize anyway but i know that the p and they even sent over to camp out when all the other records and evidence that mr wright had submitted to the agency and the camp admin all the people reported back i think at least twice because i think they that thirty second rehearsal was held last hotel room so some arguments are really boring for counsel we don't really like to have happen well i appreciate that your honor and i like to be