s challenge in this case a provision of the illinois version of the unclaimed property act that says that unclaimed property owners may not receive income earned on their property whil compensation for the earnings on their property and a declaratory judgment specifying how that compensation is to be calculated you know the state has not had an opportunity gigia turman how such compensation should be determined i don't think that they haven't considered it  of taking of the interest of is is is without compensation violates the constitution and so yes that's a clear simple world what what we're adding there are simply further constitutional requirements that the measure is of the value is the fair market value of the property taken and  think that follows from the fact of this if this is a taking then be value as measured by the fair market value there is no attempt to set the amount in the state would still be able to if it goes fair market value and then what standard might be used to from measure and the state obviously if this case proceeded would have an opportunity to weigh in on what those should be you know you just mentioned sarah je decision of the illinois supreme court which says well the state can do this because it can declare this abandoned but the statutes are both custodial statutes so the indiana statute the illinois statute this statutory scheme is the same the difference is that we have the federal court saying  the illinois supreme court says well you don't have to do that because it's abandoned property but that is exactly what we're saying is is the taking and the statute does not it's not in a sheet statute it's a custodial statute and i think as this court pointed out inserted just be that before the state can take the property there has to be some reasonable basis for doing it and there isn't in this statute in fact in illinois the property and remains in the custody of the state indefinitely there is not there's there's not an end it doesn't seem and illinois has a separate provision of seat statute which isn't incorporated in the statute so i think what the problem the is that it's a clare's in effect that the property is the senior when there is no basis to join a saunders i hope you're planning to get to the reason you lost in the district court which is williams which is williamson exactly well at the claims together basically and said well you're really asking for compensation and count one does not ask for us to forget about tell it's ok right and let's assume one can throw out any request for compensation for a reason that the district court didn't mention in the parties don't discuss which is the state is not a person for purposes of nine hundred eighty three right compensation will come from the state and you can't sue the state under nine hundred eighty three so let's just focus on the williamson question which is whether you have to go to state court and ask for compensation now as i understand your position you're relying almost completely on the correct so i would be interested in hearing what you have to say i don't know why you didn't address it in the reply brief but this is your chance because the basic principle in we as well as in san marino is that if it's just a facial any rule about how you handle takings cases that as i see it is the argument and it's what i think you need to address but there was there was a kind of a taking in in the end as well as in sen and both of the cases the court say and it's clearance and remove loss of that if it's a facial challenge if you're just claiming that a statute is unconstitutional when he doesn't have it they don't have a williamson problem legal can be read to say that there is no such thing as a facial taking that just doesn't exist right and that's decision of the supreme court in two thousand  as i say your reply brief ignores it this is your chance to address the significance of lingle and i wish you would do it well your honor you know probably we didn't read it properly  o say that but you know it in in these cases as well as cases from this circuit have recognized that facial challenges are not covered by you're saying is that i'm not saying anything i am trying to get you to address the supreme court's holding in lingle well your honor you know i i have to you know i probably need to look at amendment i'm not sure why as a matter of law i'm sure these claims are not right section fifteen is clear on as as the supreme court said in sw i don't think it is your honor because this court and answer just be cited swept with approval and and so i think that argument goes to whether it would be futile to bring a claim in state court mechanism to bring a claim but it appears to be absolutely doomed but no shame the lawyer would think that in light of the language of the statute and the holding of the supreme court to go on or that they're going to get a penny right and if we already know what the state thinks about payment on a claim like this what's the point of knocking on the door yet again ability to bring a claim that you're sure you're going to lose is why is that what williamson requires right suppose a state says we're going to take the following course and statute number two says anybody who files a lawsuit about that parcel will lose period right one statute number to make it unnecessary to go in litigate about the taking of that parcel but that's  the generic question which i understood my colleague to be asking too which is if you are perfectly confident that a claim in state court is pointless indeed it would be viewed by the state  even if this court were to find that williamson county rightness analysis that the claims are now on right under williamson county they're still barred by the eleventh amendment plaintiffs and i think there are asking for damages look as i said to no song they can't get damages because nine hundred eighty three a state is not a person under nine hundred eighty three all you can get is prospect of relief that's the consequence of michigan against the department of state police and the supreme court held in the p days against georgia therefore that there is no such thing as a sovereign immunity defense or issue in nine hundred eighty three litigation it doesn't exist and the reason is because there is no claim right and you know the p d s decision of the supreme court we're going to follow it there is no sovereign immunity issue here but there's that that this claim cannot be brought in federal court you know it seems to me to count one at least six only respectively from behalf of class members who are going to seek a return o  what do you think about the reasoning in the night that you know the ninth circuit is concluded that when a class is seeking the return of property the prolongs to the class members of the state is wrongfully that that principle the actual property might not be subject to the eleventh amendment any interest or earnings on the property would be a claim for damages against the state and is barred and that was in th decision in the next circuit and a fifth circuit followed that followed that same approach and how that they could claim any claim for the interest in damages on the property is barred by the eleventh command dismissed that under the rightness analysis because they had first i am relieved through the state process but it it's also barred by the eleventh amendment to the because it seeks in awarded damages from the state treasur well and well plaintiffs contend that that the state has has waived its eleventh amendment immunity that that's not the case here because the state provides a forum to bring to bring claims to the extent that they that the plaintiffs they can bring a claim in state court and to the extent that they have a good faith argument to distinguish themselves from swear they can do so in state court there the supreme court didn't say or at least this court in subsequent decisions did not read the supreme court to it said that there is no longer a facial challenge it's no it's no longer  court after the lingle decision that did recognize that a facial challenge could be brought so it peters was one i think must carollo was another and those were both after the legal decision on one of their on the point that was discussed about bringing a claim for our just compensation claim in account you know you want i don't want to state whether to claim against the treasurer under it's part of a young mother can be fraught i always have a hard time articulating that but we could bring in a kind can be brought under the fifth amendment because it does require that the state waive its sovereign immunity in order to pay just compensation and in this case because of this week decision there is no way to go into story more i must said that congress has not been for course the fourteenth amendment due process clause against the states as states because states or persons that's your immediate though through the fourteenth amendment as far as the taking taking without due process or taking a property what you're saying your honor is that people will have no remedy the state can now go out and grab property and not provide any compensation and there's no remedy for that if the state then says well we can do that that people can't come in and that you know that that just doesn't make sense when the