want jurisdiction in federal court so that we can be protected in our efforts to reduce our dependence on a federal program let me explain that the question was asked relations consistent with federal and congressional policy want to increase or at least maintain patronage capital so they can avoid death and hopefully get to a position of financial strength where they would not require the assistance of the federal government in the way of debt the federal government being the lender of last resort the plaintiffs on the other hand say that state law requires the payment of patronage capital to them or at least some portion of the patronage capital to them which would necessarily they can receive whatever the amount may be in the case of ms butler i think they count the amount as something like sixty dollars or less oh whatever the contingent fee might be the point is that we are trying to protect our ability to maintain and keep patronage capital consistent with the purpose of reducing our dependence on the federal government and not increasing it with respect to the merits of the dispute course it's not for the court we would say that the underlying mississippi statute seventy seven five to thirty five is not correctly quoted in the appalachian brief but footnote one it says it's the twenty sixteen version of the statute it's not if the court feels it's necessary to consider the statute it should go to west law for the current version  even under the old statute that it's the amount of money that you're trying to keep the mouth of many being kept back is not the right are they that's their argument the only berets one of our arguments is that these rights do not best until the until the boards decide to pay the money out that is consistent with federal tax laws consistent with an s so we have to treat it seriously and remained in the state court t v from pursuing your noble goals that you've outlined earlier i'm sorry how does being reminded keep you from being able to pursue these goals you said you have to be in federal court to be able to do this why do you have to be in federal court to be opposed congress's provided federal officer but you can have the same claims in the state court as well correct the purpose of the federal statute is so that federal calling to trial in federal court right but there's nothing that you're not you're not barred in yes we do yes we do the federal officer rubel statute talks about action under color of office under color requirement  been a target given the shorthand of colorable defense but to understand what that means you have to look at the u s supreme courts to solution in the mesa case where the court goes back to first cases and talks about what colorable defense has meant and it certainly does not mean complete defense in the language in mesa talks about a federal question or cla right if there be but a single element in the mass it is sufficient oh a contention that a federal statute or we say regulation does not impose obligations sufficient the raising of a federal question would be sufficient and in fact the example is given of a revenue agent that was charged with murder his defense was self defense and that was said to raise a question because not because being a federal revenue agent was a defense but because his right to be on the property arose out of the fact that he was a federal agent so the plaintiffs are just wrong when they say that it has to be a complete defense it does not the mesa decision makes that very clear this court and suborn who dealt with two claims one was for moveable the other was not the court said it was still removable in the in this court in the bel to some planes were outside the scope of the federal offense so the question is what do we have here well if you look at seventeen seventy six once of them there's a limit on distributions a limit on the distribution of patronage capital by these associations and several provisions here are in issue the first one is not right or than thirty percent have it it's if the distribution would reduce equity below thirty percent you have to get the permission of the federal government now important preemption applies to any state claim that requires the defendant to get the permission or assistance of the federal government i think the quote is the question the question for him possibility is whether a private party could applicable here yes because that is the underlying principle that applause if you if they if the case would take would reduce equity below thirty percent then we would have to get the federal government permission the federal government will be knocking at our door saying what's wrong with you as a bill of equity below thirty percent what's what's on the table here and if you five thousand dollars there's no question the removal and if they came in with a stipulation which they haven't done you would say well one play of can stipulate for all of the seventy nine thousand other people who are claiming on here apparently on that they want to claim oh so there's absolutely no reason why this complaint should be interpreted in any way other than seeking ticking more than fifty more than thirty percent the district court's fundamental error was it didn't look for a cultural defense it looked for cole reason to does not limit them to fifty three billion dollars the next question and an equally important is you can't you have to have permission if the borrower goes into  and the act of default is defined and this is to have three zero as the appointment of a receiver a trustee or similar official now the district court read this to say this is all about bankruptcy but that's not a fair reading of it and in fact the the title g bankruptcy which is in both in the original paragraph nine point one point one says you don't interpret the contract by using those headings and if there's any question about it you go to the mortgage which we provided here and the mortgage treats bankruptcy and receivership separately there's no question that there's no default that's going to have to be is their counsel if if a court appointed a trustee that would be an act of default and no money could be paid unless the federal government gave permission to pay it it's an absolute prohibition on what they're trying to do isn't it more of a special master or something to administer this rather than then a trustee trying to figure out various claims that exceed the amount and you're trying to say they used the words receiver they invoke a mississippi trust statute and ask for a trustee in fact if you look at the complaint it's hard to fund a request for relief that is not preempted first prayer relief an amount equal to fifty three million or such greater him out as determined by the court that's number two number three a constructive trust for fifty three million number future violations by appointing an independent trustee or receiver number fog award attorneys fees and of course which of course would take it over the fifty three values they also have a prayer for damages that would take it over the fifty three million they as number six asked for a trust number seven asked for trust number eight asked for an accounting of all patronage capital accounts not just some of them so congressional declaration of policy is that these association should be assisted to develop their resources and ability to achieve the financial strength needed to enable them to satisfy their credit needs that isn't express to obstacles obstacle preemption but the gesture is usually that congress has been specific congress has been very specific here we are supposed to develop our resources and ability to achieve financial strength so that we don't have to depend on federal loans to only financial strength we have is patronage capital these cases belong similar to where you know we going to create a circuit split if we were to rule for you you won't be departing from because our this case is interesting and different as just correctly found with limited art our complaint is limited it doesn't create any kind of circuit split yes or what do you do with the other side saying that it's really not limited to thirty percent i would i would ask the court to take a helicopter  these lines this one being close to lecture we say right kind of right there at the outset despite this requirement to return money as mandated by citizen five to thirty five coast electric power substation has it's the it's the mississippi chemical case and then paragraphs that it currently holds patron its capital equal to forty five percent of the assets this number far exceeds that thirty percent asset to  the amount of capital in excess of thirty percent amounts to nearly fifty three million and should and this amount should be refunded to its members moreover as a judge there correctly ruled in footnote one of his opinion members i want to go back to something public service commission doesn't regulate these guys so seventy seven five to thirty five operates just like it should that the board members they set the rates so if they're for ten cents a kilowatt hour at the end of the year it's supposed to go back to the members that's why they don't have a public site that's why they're not regulated by the public service commission they're a monopoly they've got hundreds of millions of dollars a member and member income to clever it was subtle but it was clever before two thousand and sixteen you didn't have an option you had to reduce rates with this excess or you had to return fees now when you get to do reduced rates or return member fees or guess what anything else unless the board of directors otherwise it's in the sky it's an escape clause told allow them to use the money that they've accumulated over decade given that as quoted by the supreme court the regulation of utilities is one of the most important functions traditionally associated with the police powers of the state the regulation of utilities it would be unfortunate to see the purposes and obstacle think that it's absolutely true and the congress united states in the johnson act makes it quite clear that in rape cases that there is no jurisdiction in federal court because the reason that a right case there is always  the preemption which is the issue should not be allowed to drastically expand that is the frustrating of purpose should not be allowed to drastically expand a federal lending agenc thank you very much