longstanding assertion of ownership of a coastal strip and a two point two five acre gun mounts that judgment should be reversed on any one of three grounds first secure steps said to limitations bars the pla to that the first is that the claim that they brought here was that the actions of the united states and sending the facts in two thousand and six was the source of the taking if you look at that facts which is  his thirty one fifteen of the appendix the facts says three things and includes but these documents as i'm including the eight hundred eighty seven survey math i'm including in from a map that shows property one easy which is the coastal strip and property one f which is the gun mount site and i'm including the federal register notice about that and so the source of the taking that they claim pertain only to those two point two five acres and it is but the source of the claim pertained only to the gun mount so it's the claim that's barred i think because that's what they said affected the taking and the survey is exactly the same thing that the facts pertain if you look at the facts again he says i'm about to fax you a copy of the portion of the original eight hundred eighty seven subdivision map a tracing of that map with fish and wildlife wildlife parcel service added one easy maritime zone one wildlife service had none of the rights that they answer to you when they wrote to the potential purchaser what what they know i'm not saying that what i'm saying that what they wrote to the potential purchaser was only the rights that they asserted were to the two point two five yes or no would have been helpful is it the government's you currently have at all times that they are not asserting any right to any property other than the government i think that at this point that's correct in maybe it's helpful to talk about that a little bit but i ultimately even if you concluded that the statute of limitations barred only a claim to the gun miles i don't think it would matter because i think it's clear that singing the facts even if it did state some broader claim at that point you really are left with no taking because there's no other in the issue of any sort of physical occupation or it's functional equivalent believe you look at the facts you'll see it's not stating a claim to of federal claims clew concluded was that well there are some ambiguity and we don't know exactly where the two point two five acres is on the peninsula there are some you know in the cases in the record that maybe the claim is broader and so i'm going to find that the government's that was in the state what they said and the government is just claiming any rights other than wherever that two point five acres maybe place i'm saying that the court of federal claims was mistaken the problem is this presume property and was prevented from the transfer of property and as far as the paper record looked so far have i can it's clear three that we have rights to this coastal strip into the gun mount site have the right to the purchaser and saying look what you're getting into well that's not what happened the purchaser sent an email to the fish and wildlife serv e that says i would greatly appreciate any information you could provide with respect to parcel houris and we responded to the purchaser with a federal register notice which of course was a public notice already that been made at least since one nine hundred eighty two in the federal register notice and so that would clearly bar any claim but i think that really that's far too broad a standard for what was asserted here which is a physical taking  there was it was never a regulatory taking press in this case right that's correct this was always a physical taking its case and the only thing that the united states has done is a start is ownership and i think it's clear that you need something more than a m central saying well you don't have to have as occupation and then going on with that with the fiscal so i think that not only this court case law but the supreme court's case law sort of moved on and when when you look at those cases in that context and now we're clearly in a physical takings property to two different it's a tease one of which was the united states in the united states had filed the deed and had sent a letter saying this is our land because we we bought in and filed the deed which i think is much physically took the entire property and then the court of federal claims as well the cutting back where they are that's obvious there's definitely some there are definitely historical documents in the record where the united states has at times said the ten acre property but that's broader taking than we did based on this fact and we didn't feel appeal on that ground given the the this is a national wildlife refuge if we were to lose the case entirely i think the fish while i purpose would be happy to have the land but we've not claimed gotten some sort of quite intelligent actions the government is going to come back in and say no it's ours i don't i don't believe we would well i don't want to restrict are really not attempting to do you need double park i'm just relying on what the record is and i was encourage the court to to take it don't look at what is fact that which is restricted the only if the only taking they found was based on the backs and the facts is restricted to the two point two five acres in the coastal strip so you're telling us is that if let's assume you would prevail on that yet to say government is not going to come back claim says that the fish and wildlife service employee found government tells all prospective purchaser is a parcel of property if it comes to them and saying don't bias because we have played a pretty good what we think is a very strong title plane to this property when they publish a federal register notice with maps that show this is the property you are claiming i don't think that that mere assertion of title is enough i think under this court's case law it washoe county you need some physical assumption because even on of the facts here which i don't think is necessary for the court to get to but you have mr cologne and the in the into the gym who were both willing to proceed with the sale even with knowledge of the united states claim here so i don't think that it's fair to say just because united states they  purchase price was four million and the offer from jim was three point eight something so i don't think that i think even on this evidence that there wasn't a major impact to the value there from that and i still think you know under this current case all the a case where you're dealing with mineral rights and the united states possess the land that that the mineral rights were on and so that said you're prohibited from entering in the courts and well you don't have to you know go actually be physically ejected that's enough to say well you're prohibited from entering but you don't have any sort of indication like that at all here from the fax me and there's nothing on our half experiences which are not dealing with exchanges of like ourselves but you know anybody any title existed existed long before the fish and wildlife service spent simple facts i mean that they all they did was rip restate the same claim they've had since one thousand nine hundred three from the navy you know you have if you're doing a title in the gun mount site so it's the exact same climbing arguably the sellers would be under an obligation themselves to disclose this claim which was known to their predecessors in one nine hundred eighty seven the court of federal claims found so the idea that there was any action here by the united states in sending a fax that did anything to change the what the purchaser would have done i think is incorrect because the claim existed the plaintiffs and do about it  hundred eighty seven if they're going to sell their land and they know about a cloud on the title or i think that you know at least arguably they're under a good faith duty to disclose it it was in a public document in a federal register notice so the idea that  in accordance to what they had actually asserted which was that the one twenty five acres to my time my time so alone and the other documents that were included in that communications from the communication from june twenty second two thousand and six by the  it's i think it's like the third page in the fa if i can have something in you're pointing us to everything that was said to the fires and it seems only to be a reference to the gun mounted and the others yep and not to the entire ten acres now isn't that a problem for the space going would prove that the good the actual government is located somewhere else and not within the confines of the boundaries of the plaintiff's property and that's that's where the truck for the claims found however due to the inconsistent claims of the government then the quarter final claims had to find that what any prudent person would would would do i mean that that the actual claim was you know for the  that you are time bar and that's because we think the only claim it issue here and the only thing that's at stake and the only thing that the government has ever asserted it a right to was this government thing and this other thing and that the other part questions a parcel for the government hasn't asserted anyway so it ought not to a fact it could note and it wouldn't affect at least as of this time any ability for you to sell it would you wouldn't you be happy with that opinion well the thing you would lose in a way you would lose the appeal but at least that would give you what you want right when there's no dispute on that you have no dispute on that that the government owns those portions  the government going out and telling the purchasers that they have this claim and that's the that's the that's your plan so if all they told the purchasers in response to their requests only involve client your claim has to be limited your claim is based entirely on the interference by communicating with the borrower is that the government had some sort of title playing to certain aspects of the property right file a property to other third parties and that would be it however that's when the government said that we didn't understand that they also were claiming it was you know i think so are you are you saying that at that point with the maybe i'm just overly optimistic and stupid but it seems to me that we really maybe really don't have a real dispute rock the dispute was originally that the location of the gun mount and then case here we're talking about interference with the plane this property rights to exercise their right to sell their property which they couldn't do without you know the claims of the government and i ask you what if hypothetically when th title there's another you can do another search for property one point and that will come up free and clear and if you since been located in a property just to the north we didn't appeal that conclusion you haven't had any dispute with that conclusion at this point now i think we do i think we've maintain mean so you're going to have final opinion making that statement doesn't that mean you're suggesting that that is not perhaps a will but the claim here is that our actions with respect to the peninsula took their property and that's what we've appealed and so that you know that's that's really those are the facts that matter for for this appeal and the effect of that and can be resolved there and i just i just want to make two very brief point and i hope i can maybe clear up some of the source of the confusion on the claims of the whole peninsula i guess i think what's going on here is and i don't even the substance of the because we didn't talk about it in my opening or in his response but we you know we have contended that they didn't prove their own ownership of the folk in insular because you know the survey in the in the quantity the survey flatten the quantity don't show the peninsula and so i think you know and there's you know some evidence that the larger survey was bordered on by you know property of the navy so i think that's where that confusion comes from but that's you know that's really based on our probably i don't remember that particular communication so i don't want to speculate about it but i think the way the case proceeded was you know this thing goes back more than a hundred years we've offered up you know everything we could find which included you know the map showing the ten acres which included the navy marker which included their surveys of their properties which don't show the peninsula and so i can understand why there's a lot of confusion here you think and i have this office of my colleagues  setting yeah i want to be careful i will say that we've engaged an extensive settlement discussions in the past i don't think that anything i've heard today would lead me to believe that there would be some some breakthrough on those were always willing to try again at the court i think that would be the best route for picking up on with the chief judge just said it seems to me that if you don't don't seem to have a dispute with the finding that the gun mount is in part twenty five and not plot twenty four and that there's no dispute about that maritime so so it almost seems to me that the government is  would not be adverse to communicating to the property owner that the government makes no claim to your property except with respect to the maritimes and if that's the case  a fish of wildlife refuge in this area that it is maintained since it acquired these properties since the eighty's i think the fish and you know that they would want to maintain the wildlife refuge in that area and if we were going back to have for you know part of the difficulty here is that you know if you conclude there's there's no taking we know there's still going to be this dispute out there but you know i think it was important for us both on the general principle of  there's no i mean well i i think you know the court issue fifty four b doesn't i think we could go back to the court federal claims and say we need more assistance to know exactly what we took if we were found to have taken the property you know i don't think that's the right result here for all the reasons if not meets and about there's no meet demand description there's no you don't know exactly where i mean i think we could take a guess based on where that old navy marker was as to one point up it but we don't we don't know exactly you know how to draw the line to acres those are matters that haven't been resolved i do think that the court intuition here that this is really a quiet title act dispute is is the right one and i think that you know what's what's happened here is they brought you know there they can't bring quite a title i claim and so they brought this takings claim on facts that would only give rise to a quite title act in the taking because there's no action by the government t