the direction of this levy that the government could escape potential takings like dog ok so i'll just invest in that framework but i read the contract i don't see that the contract says anything everything that's all on hold until the spill is for soft ok but what was the there was a crock court ruling in that case what was the proper role of the truck court dismissed because  that that's something i find you know julie or lactation it's an issue on appeal and also in this case there's a tremendous amount of stuff allegations that there has to be proof that the proof that the person who entered in the contract was coerced or other words what's the basis for saying that givens has to be coerced if the government says to givens will contract with you and you know that would be a taking have done by the government that you don't have to show that the person who entered in the contract was called worst to into enter into the contract in the first place right well the alternative would be to show agency   we're going to contract with you to do something which is harmful to the plaintiff's property here that would be potentially a taking right now you can he could and it wouldn't have to be that the government co formal agency relationship i mean i think it's affectively you have an agency relationship if the government contracts with somebody to do something now i again since agency  construction and continued existence of the levy would be the direct and intended result of the government's action contracting and that is one of the two finds it must be made in order for the government to be liable for it taking place on the actions of a third party the action that harms the plaintiffs must be the direct and intended result of the government action and then in order for that third party action to cancer government action this court itself that there must be coercion or agency now i do necessary to each other that is mr givens assertion which was to his benefit in a state court toward action but but again taking a fact as true at this purpose at this stage of the proceedings it would still be at the theory is it would still be the case that it's a collateral consequences unintended consequence and that is not sufficient to make a third party action responsible sorry to make a third party action of government actions actually t given so it's a necessary element of the course of action that we've been through that well you know because because the building of the levee was not part of this contract because the continued existence of this levee is not effective in keeping mr givens farm from flooding and he has a very excellent farm i mean i you know i can i can see why she would do it you know but and exactly that he the first thing he cites that like you're saying that he probably wouldn't remove the levy anyway because it protects his farm well that's correct that i totally agree with that ok and that's the basis of the state  it's a violation of the state control are whatever it is in use interest whether or not the federal government had a contract with him regarding conservation to get that levee there what he's saying yes but my problem is this if he's putting up these contracts as a barrier to achieving a solution  maybe as a matter of state law if that were the only purpose of the levy he'd have to take it down and the reason he's resisting that state law quite to force him to remove the levy is that it's required by his think you know the existence of these contracts extracting these contracts from mr mr again you know i'd be very interested to find out who approach to look you know you know  the government think that this would be great for the waters of the united states to to require this filter shrimp are now going into the levee it wasn't place and that you know everybody knew the deal was prohibited from it i think that their position would be that why should we be forced to live and we you know just because mr givens decided to protect his property in a way that that harm you know that harms our property you know i that i never really talked about that with my clients but that's a