the question before this court is who should be responsible for making the entity person who made it or the person who suffered the loss b p is a part of it made a mistake in this briefly discuss the weapons claims process because i do not think there were any weapons claims cases before this court except maybe cases involving six excluded classes such as oil companies i'm not aware of  any finding similar to this or you do talk about the facts of the how the online portal works is how can we deal with the fact that these come from your brief and maybe you're about to tell us in not from the record in the case but i'm sor weren't many of the key facts including how the online portal works doesn't don't seem to be in the actual record before us if i wrong on that well the settlement program in the at the border led to a public record i mean i don't know how i could put the online portal but it just seems that it was in your brief but not in the record below but perhaps i'm wrong on that and some maybe you want to address that first before you tell us how it works well the fact that it's online the only thing that's relevant with regard to that is how it blocks the claim from being submitted but even if you submitted it as a paper it still would block the claim to ministry to which still blocking the online makes it easier makes it immediate but it really doesn't change the fact that if used to mid these claims in paper and simply scanned images submitted a in that way or handed him in they still would not have been deemed submitted as a matter to ministry to still listen is not submitted so i don't want to get hung up on the on line because that that really doesn't change things it just makes it a lot easier for somebody to do it  but the money go back to the wetlands process for a second because i think that's very important the difference between the wetlands claims and all of the claims that i'm aware of and maybe coastal property claims may be in this category but attempting to block the oil of course from coming to the land using satellite imaging to show where the oil was cleaned it up it cetera and then going to the parishes the coastal parishes and getting the database of the owners of the land that's right along the coast and when the claims settlement was entered into under exhibit twelve a it said that b p developed this database of potentially eligible parcels and that it is the best available data and presumed to be correct presumed to be correct so when you got when you went to submit a claim you would submit the claim by tax parcel because that's the only thing that you had there was no this is more like duck hunting land that this is truly wetlands that we're referring to and you get a tax bill so what i did is i had seven tax bills i proceeded with the two and not the other five yeah the other way around that's exactly right and and and so what a ventral the occurred i think the joining tracks and no no no but my dad was a was a land  in did a lot of work in plaquemines parish i tell he made his living and the titles in plaquemines parish were sloppy very poorly done and there was a lot of when oil companies became interested in the fifty's in the there was a lot of questions about how you become the owners of this people would buy tracks of swamp land that the only reason they bought them was hoping that the oil companies would be interested in drilling on them and so on and that's how we  these landsman when my dad passed away you know we probably had i don't know fifteen parcels like this and seven in plaquemines and st bernard and some other ones that would even be and so they're all undeveloped tracks all with just townships until and i will give i will give p b s lawyers credit for this when we got up to the court of appeals they admitted that they were erroneous lee rejected in their brief they admitted that was the first time that was ever admitted to me now of course i knew for a fact at that point that they were erroneous only directed rejected because only one four six zero three hundred they've been pate the other three quarter owners have been paid on the other one nobody's been paid but you have a situation where close but not exactly right and this is the distinction is very very important on and there are some documents in front of you and i wanted to direct that they are the instructions to submit the wetlands claims the difference between wetlands and the other claims is you do not submit a claim if you were told the partial is not in a claims and you do not submit a claim you cannot submit a claim in my brief i said there was no point to direct you to page five and there's two versions if you look at the bottom which is v one and be two and the one was handed out at the time that this was all going on i went to a seminar they should here's a literature or you could go on the computer portal or the claims office whatever and can prove that you're in with them in the wetlands and right in the way you can prove it is a tax bill which i used and they denied me or survey which i did not have but you didn't when did you first file that line with the tax bill yeah but that's just fourteen but the but they still say they're not submitted that's the issue right now they say you can't submit them and on the other clear other type of claims economic loss of individual economic loss you submit the claim they deny it at that point then you can appeal with through the appellate process but if the claim is not submitted and you are paid your on the on the other two claims i got paid on one claim one small claim in march and april of two thousand and thirteen so that the hundred eighty day rule expired in october to pember october two thousand and thirteen why didn't the appe time line into the settlement agreement to peel a plot once they repeatedly refused to accept your submissions can i shouldn't you have appealed at that point that's that's what's so crazy about time i submitted the claim to claims and joy i have two thousand twelve hours eligibility notices on those two claims in law on one of the two claims in like february and march of two thousand and thirteen we accepted it s hundred eighty days started to run at that point when we accepted those claims one of them got hung up but the the other one is still never been paid which i wished of course the one that was paid had been oh we wouldn't be having all this problem but survey i didn't have proof that actual oil had gotten on the property it was twenty six months after the spill i don't have proof this land is very remote you have to go to will get in a boat to get to it i'm relying on them and the claims process tells you that we have the best available data this is presumed to be correct and this is was a clerical error on their part there's no question that these profited were in the claim zone the problem was they didn't have the tax bills for all of them and  there's just a clerical error well that's right but yeah you know limitations case the person who is wrong yeah as you know typically two years three years to gather information in and gets a hey you maggie mistake and twelve two hundred eighty days past the march april twenty third team date you say anyway i think my land was i think there's a problem here but i did know well you have your own reasonable you have to get they told you no there is there i don't know the answer that i know that i went down to the records and i own a quarter of this had you found out about other because h p s was in his ninety's who was a friend of my dad call me on a minor thing but how do you know your property taxes wrong this would do and you didn't pay them and he said by the way you know i got paid on this i thought you said you didn't know who he was no no h b yes i knew it yes i did not realize that he co wrote a quarter of this land with co owners my father was hired by one family to help straighten out the title dispute they settled it and my father became a one six owner and the other parcel were divided up among the other wrong that said i did not know the folks i didn't know them at all in the now who they are and again with the one four six zero three hundred i did not know who the co owners were i just knew it was a poor parcel and it along with the other five parcel which i don't you cannot submit a claim you cannot and you have to have these very limited things and it's either the tax bill which i submitted or service not vote or an actual proof of boiling which is thirteen it's best not to tell there was a that was to change but what about the next paragraph if you disagree with the wetlands real property dead and think your partial should be included you may request a review of the eligibility have or tax bill were just a minute and they denied or proof of boiling which was twenty six months after the spill and it was all cleaned up i didn't good try to go out there you could have gotten a survey couldn't you know i don't have a survey and  will designation i did not but what's the amount of the current one one four six zero three hundred it's two hundred ninety nine thousand dollars for the four of us together on one six one zero one nine four i do not know yet it right and if you disagree is very limited on what you can do you have to have been you have to have a service and you didn't want to pay for a service all right let's just talk about one six one zero one nine for that one for me that's fifteen hundred acres they put that in it was an eligible parcel they put that in they did not put in apparently the tax bills for the other two owners myself and p g he submitted a claim in two thousand and thirteen i think and they say you're eligible the problem is you didn't challenge the eligibility in you were titled a and it seems like you could go to the tax office and say what are the other tax numbers for this parcel i am not aware of the ability to do  that i to this day do not know that all i knew is only one who are plus the other thing is i didn't know this is the whole point obviously i wanted to submit the claim you can look at the thing and see i wanted to smooth the claim they admit i tried to submit t right so if the hundred thirty day rule had not kicked in in june of two thousand and fourteen when i did find out this would have been going through the when you have the same argument to have tried to file a claim and you rejected it so i should be included in definitely i mean that no that is a hypothetical which i realize that and i think that i'll tell you something or other just people out there who are in that boat because there are the claims administrator has gone on record of these admitted public policies that hundreds literally hundreds of parcels that he said were eligible he is now saying we're ineligible meaning he made mistakes and i know of several that were listed as you know it's going to rigidly and should have been eligible and why would the claim to ministre are in late two thousand and thirteen and the work pullin airily to to the instruction thing which you know when the first instruct came out it didn't say preliminarily in fact if you read exhibit twelve a it goes on and on and on about how we went this is the best database this is presumed to be correct this is the best partial boundary database strictly discouraging eligible then i didn't have any basis for disputing it because by the time this claim settlement was announced in may of two thousand and twelve that was twenty five twenty six months after we had the argument he said sometime presumed but it can be overcome and indeed the provision of the free continues to say however that presumption may be rebutted as outlined in sections below and actually if you look at the document that so that with the ability to request forms and this is the very form that the errors of on a timely basis when they got the same response from the computer database that mr schoenberger for his clients and south did which was when you got that response from the computer this is the form you're supposed to submit that he submitted that for the years of p g they got paid they don't have a time bomb problem mr sheldrake or didn't read the instructions and didn't see how the whole set of forms here fits together would you would see that if you got this automatic rejection notice because the database you know had over you know misinformation or or was in the power in some fashion what you had to do within the applicable time periods was database look at subsection after instance but it also appears and in some instances this data may be incomplete or out of date and so you have the procedural opportunity to challenge the fact that the database is presumed to be correct and indeed  administrator though has given me an innocent vice and whenever he contacted him i mean it may have already been too late but he's asking for help and he's having trouble and it seems like they should have given him the information administrator until after he got this phone call from a caller he never took any steps during the during the six month window he took no for an answer at that time when the when the computer said that the parcels weren't eligible but even i mean it would have been timely in june of two thousand and fourteen just there was nothing done they didn't seem to respond to him very well and i guess it made my mom wrong on there i think you're wrong about that because now me why s because you know if you look at the the motion that was filed with the district court there are documents attached to that that make clear that mr schoenberger spoke to someone from brown greer who is a contractor for the claims administrator and was told that the reason why your claim is being denied is you're outside the six month window and there's really not once your point it didn't matter that they didn't give in and struck since you know you should have done this form right because in reality you know it be i don't think the answer would be any different if we were dealing with a pro se claimant but we're dealing with you know a lawyer who both owns the claim and as a client for himself who owns part of the claims and some other individuals and if you look at the settlement agreement it's very clear that it puts you on notice that the claims administrator is database is not absolute gospel it's not you know you cannot file and when a claim unless your claim is in this database  because it's not in the record but i'm saying if you credit what he said what he's saying is that the errors of p g told me that i may have had a survey we don't know that's true it's also possible that they may have had a survey but that's just provides another reason to deny the claim i agree with your honor that if you is he entitled to some compensation is just a question of how much time so if you can look at the township right and say ok i'm in that map and i might be in town of a dollar a million dollars but i get something yes you would you would get something and so that puts you on notice if you're the claimant that you should you know if you get a computer response that says you know the database says you're not in that then you need to take the next procedural steps to challenge it and that's what mr shaw mother did not do and that's and and there you know if there is a case to enforce the six month borrowing in this case is in because nothing was done and that six month period the other thing i want to make sure that the court understands is that one you know either two of his claims or one hiding in the settlement agreement somewhere in this six month time bar was very prominent and very key and something that he negotiated alternative argument that he loses anyway because six months certainly from that day it seems like that would be in the record the settlement agreement is in the record your honor so the exhibit with the individual releases in there in section eighteen is in there what would be what's not eighteen that says you have six months to file following claims that is in the in the record for sure he says there's lots of these claims that with lots of errors in the book many people are going to be coming in with these kinds of cases do you  is that everybody's talking about things not records perhaps you want to comment on that as well you're you're either so you know this is the first case i've ever seen like this this is the first case i've ever heard of anything like this and i base that not just on things that ever existed this is clearly the first case like this that has reached this court but i haven't seen anything like this reach the district court and i haven't seen anything like this in the internal appeals process either i think that this is you know this is a one off situation in which you have a set of facts i think are compelling to say that the time bar blocks the claim that let me you know run through for you i think just practically six things that i think you know mr schoenberg should have done and some of them come up in an oral argument right so he could have read the wetlands instruction manual clearly and he would have seen that submitting the form of page eleven is how you challenge something when you get a no answer from the computer database he didn't do that second he could have read exhibit twelve a of the settlement agreement especially section one d three and he would have seen all of the warnings that you know you can challenge the presumption there and that if you look at  subsections aff and she and so on that follow warnings to any claimant that the database may have had errors and so it's incumbent on you to come forward to challenge it under the processes of the settlement if you if you want to do that three he could have called the  program within the six month window and he would have been told about this form i think but there's no he did he he calls only after he gets the phone call from the caller during the six month time bar which he was specifically on notice of when he signed the release and in general was on notice of his it's in the settlement agreement he never acted during that six month period at all the court was exploring with him that he could have contacted his co owners and he professes that he doesn't know who they wore but i again there's no record evidence of that but it seems suspicious to me that they seem to know who he is but he doesn't know who they are fifth he could have read section four point four point eight and notice the six month window that's applicable in the settlement agreement by its own terms and it doesn't seem like he did that and then finally as i noted he could have read section eighteen of the individual release that he signed when he got paid on one of as well as claims which references back to section four point four point eight and finally i think really concedes that they filed this form and so if you file that form that is the proper procedure that was established under exhibit twelve and windy three for challenging the presumption that the database was correct he didn't take those procedural steps and therefore his claim is time barred by the six month are all that relevant whether the other person got paid or not i wonder i think that cuts both ways and i don't understand why you're arguing that ok your honor i don't think that it's necessary that you reached out i personally find it  important because of the fact that it's not as if this was an impossible byzantine process that no one managed to navigate we don't know what would have happened had he filed a challenge we we just know there was an opportunity to challenge that i was asked the best we can say there was clearly an opportunity to file a challenge and that's the essence of a procedural default your honor if that if those steps if that exhaustion of remedies provided in the settlement agreement is not undertaken within the six month time bar then the six month time bar blocks the claim kept waiting to hear counsel explain to the court how easy it would have been for me to get proof that this property was actually oiled never brought that up it's not what would not have been easy to get provide to them you have to provide a tax bill which i already did that says a point that's what they deny or a survey not both or you have to bribe for proof of oil and it was not practical to require that people provide proof of oil or you don't know what they would have done had you gone in with your your parcel designation again and your township range and set it in the map and we just don't know i don't know what they would have done it obviously you know i don't correct what i do know is i did read the instructions and the instructions were very detailed that's why i didn't submit the claim form because a claim you said you cannot submit them you have to go through the eligibility partial challenge form and if you are going to submit the eligibility partial challenge form you have to have a tax bill which i had already utilized and they denied it well we just don't know what happened if you challenge but i'm just reading with the not like a country home or a big front home or something like that that you go to but not submitting the form to put them on notice to double check the tax form and check the property description that's what error is here if well in assume that they were already looking at your form but they weren't because this is the backup fail safe system for them to look at the form and say this is the tax thing we can go back and it's somebody double checking that and you could have submitted the same thing you already submitted and there was in detailed instructions telling you that you were supposed to do that that's the problem with this case and that's all twenty twenty hindsight beyond yes now that you know what should've done of course i would have done because you had the instructions to tell you what you were supposed to do and i had already submitted the tax code i can't emphasize that you didn't submit it to the right people to back up checker people homo supposed to know that now it doesn't tell you what you do that if if you disagree then you submit the tax bill or you proof of oil in and out already submitted the tax not to the right department of the people they don't you know you just put it on the computer and it a like a it had a database of certain that were already in there but these folks would go back behind that to check on other ones that were not in the database that's the whole purpose of having a backup system for the database but i didn't know that well but that's what they told you to have that no they say if you believe it was was eligible then submit this and not submitted the tax bill and already in the told me it wasn't eligible i mean it's if i knew it was all of course i would have done that naturally i mean it can you could you tell it was the record say when we're from the i'm sorry what now can you tell it least from the township range description you had that it fell within the math i knew from the township right that it was in south plaquemines parish and i knew that the other parcel was on the east bank of plaquemines parish i did not know it had water probably in order to be eligible you have to have it's just a tiny sliver of land that runs along the coast like a half a mile i didn't know that it had water front of judges knew it was in and one of the ones in st bernard parish i had a photograph that was shows just totally surrounded by water and was ineligible and remains ineligible so you know i don't you knew i knew roughly where they were i did know exactly where they were and i'd never set foot on these properties and i doubt my dad ever set foot in these properties because it's swamp there's only one reason they have a boat that was open oil companies would be interested in and pay him you know to drill down that