our has a law degree from vanderbilt university in nashville tennessee and she has a particular impressive to me a bachelor of science in public policy where she specialized in science and them as a g i p i'm sure so if i refer to them as g o p that's what i'm referring to the th amendment to the constitution of the united states states in the express letter nor shall private property be taken for public purpose without just compensation and in the cases that we cite in our principle grief that amendment and that the notion of just compensation is described as a fundamental component of  let me just so you know what i'm focused on this one is as to their argument about the nonmetallic material namely the slag the question why isn't all of your interest in that still on site and therefore not taken when the forty two million four hundred and twenty thousand should be guards and then on the other side what case would stand for the proposition answer them in the order in which they were present of i think they get to the heart of many of the matters as to the slack that the answer is twofold number one the lower court found that that all of the slack was taken and again i will locate on cases testimony to that effect that is cited in our briefly we make the point that that the government takes issue with that factual findings but not only is it supported by the record but in further answer to your question there and say it's your job you failed in your job i'm betting it's strikes at the heart of this case your question here's the answer the court didn't credit the defense presentation that this material was valueless quite to the contrary as the court had to do given the the body of record evidence the court repeatedly found that this material has value he just couldn't figure out exactly how much if you really know he said you  figure out exactly how much you said we didn't we didn't prove with mathematical precision he said with reasonable certainty right and in so doing he made a number of errors in why he projected mr gleason and i'm happy to discuss those arabs but the finer point on it that doesn't seem to me to answer the question is are those principles override normal litigation procedural principles whereby if a plaintiff with the burden on the issue which is undisputed fails to make a case that the trial court can say you're done i'm not going to even if i could make the case for you because this case involves a constitutional right the answer is yes and different amount of damages no doubt of there's nothing in here in this says that the court has to well fitting well actually there's a there's a very critical quote in that decision that's where the parties presented extreme and divergent positions which is certainly the case in this case and the court rejected both of them which is also the case in this case this court says the trial court had and i quote few options  it's private property offers nothing tenaciously that it gets the plaintiff prevails on every issue except the technical quality of some of the damages evidence the court has few options that's not surprising well but you know once you once you establish that the government seize private property and sold it for millions and millions of dollars that makes of crime a fashion show and if the government has evidence that would mitigate damages and show million dollars that is the precise inquiry that the court should have made it or or the courts empowered to take more evidence to order more evidence or even to appoint its own expert but the court can't throw up  its hands it can't just throw up its hands and say there's a constitutional duty that when the government seizes property and i just can't figure it out and therefore you get nothing this isn't a case where government other than leftover food from the arm because the government often so garbage for profit it so if you're talking about when it was sold in bankruptcy it went on talking about when when you sold the contents had a contractor out there and they let hearts go did and her school paid the contractor who was doing then our mental remediation part of what they were earning from that gig but ultimately were no profits there was this was done at a loss so the evil running it would have stopped it's on mining before he turned on profitable so there might have been i would say a year and a half or two years worth of profitable digging and at least it could have gotten that because as soon they wanted every last piece of metal done for the four years that means that the added cost for the nd thing your honor is is because they said that the taking was happened on june th two thousand and eight that was their claim they had to value the property before the property was cra one side and another extreme on the other isn't there or as long as the curial be evidence in the record and not too far fetched that if the trial court could make a these piles nobody knew on the date of the alleged taking how much they were going to get it so suited to do to give the plaintiff the benefit of knowledge that nobody had would be like if the government took your lottery ticket before the watery miller for example said under this standard the owner is entitled to receive quote what a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller at the time of the taking it has to be what it would a rd party would drive up on that day and the amount if you'll turn to them were entitled to any more slag and what they aren't kept they could make the basic proof of how much they'd already taken off and of course the urn of proof was on them to show that they had taken four hundred and twenty thousand cubic feet but the art already has you in one very specific question having to question you have an opinion about whether there's significant slide left out of the pile answered sure of it so that it's under a few testimony that there is slack out there to be taken and of course like this fungible so