haldeman -- -- theeman: the judge argued,the case was they said we are in general agreement with the district court treatment of the issues. judge rogers: no need to elaborate. mr. freeman: no need to elaborate on the general treatment of the issues, and the acknowledged that there was no meaningful analysis, it was pointed out that the underlying district court proceeding in itself is ambiguous and rationale. judge rogers: that sense that if we look at the decision by the court, you're not going to find it, but that decision says we sgree with judge circa' analysis and no need to elaborate. judge sirica's analysis and no need to elaborate. mr. freeman: and we are denying. on the narrative of the question, i agree that the judicial proceedings in front of you -- i just do not think -- this is an a porton question that no court of appeals has ever issued a decision, and i think -- judge rogers: so you say clearly held, and i thought that adverb was interesting, because you put it everywhere. no court has clearly held. the adverb. that was meant to refer to the standard. judge rogers: