in my oral argument i'd like to briefly summarize the counsel please i always hate to do this when you're just getting into role but i do have one older writing question that from the beginning and the get go it's going to help me and that's a question of whether you have the right parties before the court and looking at what the alabama state legislature in the supreme court has said and i'm quoting the alabama supreme court well the statute says under the management that the retirement system is under the management of the board of control for the purposes of providing retirement allowances and other benefits under this provision the very provision that we're talking about and then the alabama supreme court has also said it's no our s s a that's not proper parties you had a man now one time and then evidently dismissed them out and they're the one and sold agencies that you have they can't help you you've got to go back i think she agrees with this point judge bell about it but the problem with that argument it seems to me just munity from liability unlike the sovereign immunity of florida dealt with in the two cases that the court put in its questions the immunity in alabama is immunity from suit and that was all of the other defenses that the state would have enjoyed under its sovereign immunity and it's a court and that includes not just immunity from liability but from suit the ability to say we should not have to go to trial on about the question for example about whether the plaintiffs have named the right defend it is that some unity from you know the clash of the right defendant is our argument under some it having to do with liability and  confer immunity from suit there is a munity from suit immunity from liability and immunity from a federal forum the stroud case says that when a state arm of the state case they have waived their community to the federal forum and we don't dispute that here but nothing about what i mean from a federal form for a federal form for any state defendant doesn't it well right that's a much tougher answer to find and i mean it kind of has to be that doesn't mean because it's the state policy argument for why i think that's the wrong way to go i couldn't find any appellate law and that's your honor i found that to district court cases that you cited i didn't think the analysis was terribly deep in either one but here's my policy argument when you have a state like alabama where state sovereign immunity applies to so many divergent entities including a sheriff how is that the actual decision maker and the attorney general seat who really should be involved in this waiver issue before it happens to know about that removal before it happens so if the sheriff was to be a lot more efficient for the state of alabama riposte all that authority and the attorney general i certainly had to work at one time and probably still do so what we're talking about adding  why would you remove or again removed the same suit against any other people that's a fair point and i would like to point out that the only way for was the forum the federal forum that should position but i mean just law under section fourteen of the constitution about obama in fact would work i begin was not out to get it clear to me that you had made that argument in your brave bet but to the extent that you did make that argument we recognize of course that there's plenty of instances where the supreme court of alabama nevertheless oil state officials to be sued oh it wasn't entirely clear to me that this wouldn't be one of those instances of out big for me to what extent did you have you explained  your braving at all that under alabama supreme court precedent that this is the kind of controversy that would be subject to state law about state constitutional know what appears to be very very calm strong statement of sovereign immunity and section fourteen may nevertheless allow no state actions to preach to proceed you're  you came in this morning you say there are three kinds of immunity which i understand that argument and it's an interesting argument i understand immunity from a federal court under stand the immunity from liability you're saying there's a third time maybe that would maybe well be right so not a lot of case well about that it would nevertheless recognize the states offer an immunity under state law but to the extent that you're saying that that you come in today and said each day not no federal form but you're east what you're saying is your argument now is a state law immunity from suit oh and it would depend on whether it's in a federal form now would it a this is why by the way i would just want counsel and this is why the court said instructions for counsel to be prepared to address at oral argument these questions this church takes no question was really not saying and you know to make oral argument affective and productive we try as we're preparing the case to give you some advance notice of what concerns  and you know it's not especially helpful to get to oral argument and to ask these questions about what you've been given advance notice and to be told i don't know we didn't really brief that i would row behind me on my right side the court has inquired whether in a lock a tory appellate jurisdiction exists for this appeal the answer isn't phatic lee first this case or this appeal does not satisfy or the eleventh circuit but i'm also i'm very familiar when you don't have the right parties in the court and you need to address cetera because i mean i'm following the jurisdictional argue much as was pointed out by the court have jurisdiction entertain that argument that is a question of merit the suit the district court decided below in denying summary judgment that we had the right parties so you're inquiring into a question of merit that the  already have it in this case we had it we i have it with miss walker when miss walker was working in the alabama attorney general's office as a special agent she participated in state policeman retirement she transfer legal well at that time it was the department of public safety she transfers she's in the exact same classification special agent and she is denied state police from the time she has to shift to a lower retirement program which is possible and which the retirement systems recognized in their letter to mr that yes you can you can participate in split retirement you can go from your retirement plan you're in right now to state policeman retirement going right and and and the whole point was we've been told repeatedly we're going to fix it we're going to fix it it's not fixed today your honor well counsel i really appreciate that but i think you know you need to press on and the jurisdictional question i don't  made by director graham the personnel board and works for the board that right right and the board told her to do something else she would have to do it wouldn't change there is no evidence the board has told her anything morning has said that there are three different kinds of immunity that are implicated here one is immunity from suit in a federal forum one is i'm unity from suit altogether one is immunity from liability she seems to agree that immunity from a lot ot is beyond our jurisdiction in this kind of an iraq atory appeal she she also seems to agree that they have waived any immunity from a federal forum but she argues that they nevertheless still have the right to remain to argue that there is i mean a day from suit all together under the state constitution ok now i didn't particularly claim that argument from her brave but but seven alabama supreme court two thousand and fifteen would like it least to me allow the supreme court alabama has allowed an ex parte a young tight proceeding on back up of plato seeking alabama constitution the album supreme court has been phatic legally or time after time after time that you can sue a state offers officer for injunctive relief in their representative capacity and if you go back and look at the original complaint that was filed in the circuit court of montgomery county alabama secretary spencer call your and dr david bronner were sued in their quote representative capacity form jumper one as allowed by the alabama contour as interpreted as being allowed  have for why this is not an approach ok really there see is about a crystallized past decision it is not prospect of the only thing that's ongoing is a diverse they say the only thing they want is to be allowed going forward to b suppose but better if that's true why it's not and therefore you know how are we to know that when they go back to state court the district court below was confused about exactly what they were speaking seeking and they wanted to go because if you look at their facts in the complaint they're complaining that when they were hired in two thousand and eight in two thousand and nine from that point forward they should have been getting the kind of retirement that they weren't