now as long as we don't think we need to use it we're not going to file quite tight election he doesn't want to fire clive to action that's real problem the problem is they've got no business being in federal court the issue so anyway this that there's no question  was going to start off my argument with that because that is a red herring that needs to be put to bed period the two thousand dollars a day fine what would plainest briefs do is they blur the distinction between the three actions that the board in attempt to raise this issue which is absolutely in an issue and has not been an issue for several years and the first board action was august one thousand nine hundred ninety excerpts of the record two fifty eight find have got thirteen hundred dollars in order to go order a conservation district use application seeking a conservation district used herman the second board action was in february two thousand and three at which time the board ordered to pay a fine of six hundred seven dollars and submit a c d u a which she had done but had been accepted for at that time this is february two thousand and three the board threatened to impose fines of two thousand dollars a day if she did not comply will did not comply with  that's one of the reasons we're not should be extremely courtyard williamson specifically tells us that we have true prongs of one is we've got to go to state court purse to find out what the state really did and we say we did and they say we did i mean i understand you read it i read it too and i can certainly understand the way the court reads if we have him phatic least head we're not we're not trying to take it if it's yours you can have it you get to use it or the public  we tried to sell it i don't really want to get into so sixty four dash one has several parts parts so if a road is laid out by a private party then it only becomes owned by the state if it's abandoned their dedicated but part eighty says  compensation in federal court anyway and that there isn't any there isn't any exception for illegal exaction illegal exaction is simply a type of of regulatory taking what happened in nolan i was thinking about this inverse condemnation proceeding it had been just three weeks before that the united states supreme court decided first english in which first english and agencies hagan's both to both acknowledge at the time this created court in california said this is not in the legal exaction case of the case that was it then when they appealed to the supreme court the united states supreme the court said it isn't it we go exaction and so therefore the only remedy because are they going to pursue are they going to pursue just compensation or are they going to they're going to change the regulations so you know basically that's the that's the plaintiffs argument they said it isn't illegal exaction case which first of all it isn't it's a quiet title of why do we have this condition thirteen in one of the previous permits oh ok ok fair enough maybe i guess i'm being the and so it's arguable if you read it the way the plaintiffs do that the department has conflated like that but there but we we say they have it and that's williamson county got to go back and figure out what they are saying we can't they can't just come to federal court and say this is what you did i mean it's kind of an anomaly they're going to come in and say you did this and we did we didn't do that and i guess i have six seconds well but but you know i mean that the illusion has been to the other parts of the the claims not having that much merit and and it and i agree with that i do want to say though that it is very important i mean require represent here is i represent the state i represent a future capacity defense and i represent individuals individual human beings who are sued for a really wide range in very deleterious set of things including rico none of which have the slightest amount of merit and regard to what happens with this back to the rest of the taking whether it goes back or procedure however did it proceed wherever it goes we really strongly urge the court to affirm the decision below that the rest of these claims against these people individually must can and should be and remain anyway that's something that's point to remaking everything the defendant john specifically talked about so when we have a situation where it's not just the defendant proceeding knowing that there has to be a nexus and knowing that there is no nexus and then in addition and then and we have the so side of the record with the threat that if we did not turn over the road  us flowers afterward so they i think that the only reason that we are getting these concessions is because we have six but if if i can get back to your other point should fletcher of out of the you know you do interpretation of the saying that that's not the way it is not the way that it should be interpreted if you take a look at the next sensing condition numbers thirteen