decision to treat the employees complaint as the offer of pleading in this case may have been improper pelleas didn't raise this argument in their brief and in fact the union defendants below submitted this was the proper course of action in their brief to the district court which they found the record of page two thousand three hundred twenty two they argued that the court should grant janice entry clear leave to file their complaint and intervention and to treat it as the operative pleading and the union relied on the same case as the employees relied on in making that request and that the district court ultimately relied upon which your authority is holding that when a court has been dependent jurisdiction over intervenors complaint which it certainly does here it can treat that complaint as the operative fleeting because there is no point in making the interveners we follow their complaint under a separate case number given that the court already has jurisdiction over it and i submit that the district court properly decided to follow that procedure and treated jensen tri under that case number or re followed under a different case number that's not a jurisdictional question but a procedural one and since the a pelleas did not challenge that procedural decision i submit it's not before this court and if the court has no further questions  you to cut issue i'm going to address the other issues here so there's no question as as mr messenger agrees that the abboud case is controlling with respect to the constitutionality of agency fe s and i'm sure the court's aware that that specific issue of whether the food case should be overruled has been up before the supreme court two times in the last four terms and that my my  friends are hoping to make this the their their third try at it i think there are several issues given the the possibility that this case may well go up to the supreme court at least on a petition for certiorari if not more there are several issues that it would be important that this court addresses beyond the fact that a boot is controlling law just so that the record before the supreme court would be clear and the first one which mr messenger alluded to is the question of jurisdiction and he's absolutely right that in the court below my client i was not personally involved in the case that time but my client argued that there was stiction for the district court even after it had dismissed the governor's underlying lawsuit for lack of a federal question and for lack of standing that there was still jurisdiction other reason that if there is a if if there is a motion to intervene by other plaintiffs who have an independent cause of action over which the court honor because that is because of the fact that the court had no jurisdiction over the court always has jurisdiction to decide its own jurisdiction right so this or judge has power over the case at that point  the day before he couldn't have granted the motion intervene i haven't i haven't really thought carefully about that your honor i think i think it would have does it matter is it your theory that because i believe it's docket entries one sixteen and one seventeen that those are in the wrong order so there was no jurisdiction even though it was all disposed of else i don't ok so it was so what's the theory well that theory is something that's been articulated actually by this court and by many other courts that that that say when a a court determines that it has no jurisdiction over a case there is nothing for the four for an interveners to intervene in because rule twenty four does not provide any independent basis for for jurisdiction  by the district judge has never addressed the issue of whether there exists this exception and the supreme court never has either rights the exceptions the exception is that when you when the interveners have a cause of action that's independent of the underlying cause of action and the court would have jurisdiction over the  interveners cause of action if it were had been brought us an independent suit that the district court none of that even though it's dismissed the original case has jurisdiction to continue with the the interveners complaint intervention you're switching back to sequence we now give that explanation i thought you told me a few minutes ago sequence doesn't matter or should not matter and i guess i'd like to get you clear thoughts on that  i think the sequence if the if the court could have granted intervention before hand before it dismissed the complaint it's a more difficult question i guess i would agree at least on that much the you know i think here where the court is addressing the question and again this this isn't one or two in the same same opinion where the court is addressing the question of do i have any jurisdiction over this lawsuit and determines that it doesn't or the stakes here are any higher than the filing fee for a civil case well i think that's that's the that's the i guess you mean i guess the question is the stakes for whom the the certainly the plaintiffs are that if you will that for the jurisdiction rule that you are advocating are the stakes any more that i mean that probably not unless i mean i don't think that should be the case here but in some cases there might be a statute of limitations issue but but probably that's mainly the the main issue and that's what the courts of held that have that have that the district court cited below they you know they have typically said well this just as a practical matter what's the point of making them go back and there's certainly a lot of making that it go back what do you mean by making them making them instead of allowing them to proceed in this case over in which they tried to intervene it it strikes me as i mean first of all it's an issue this court has i can understand why since the intervention is the equivalent of news might as well do it a little faster but it doesn't seem that anything major turns on yeah i think what i you know i you know it seems to me that the that the notion that you know nothing really turns on this so we'll just loud them to proceed and save the money i think frankly i'm not going to be able to cite any examples but i think frankly is is not really in step with the the way that the supreme court in recent years has been  if if if it's treated as the operative point but jurisdiction on the run or the original complaint is debatable right do you want to threaten fatal blow to the interveners claim if they fail to file a separate action and that would seem to me to encourage a multiplicity of actions and and basically be contrary to rule one well i would i would just say it's what the what the supreme court has said in the texas portland was before the civil rules back in  original suit the court said that there's the intervention was what purported to be an appearance in the original suit already brought and in our view must abide the fate of that suit so i think the answer would be judge hamilton that that the proposed intervener it would have to be aware of whether there is a you know really jurisdiction it was that the the jurisdictional flaw in the d the rule in a declaratory judgment action is whether there is a federal question depends not on it depends on on how the federal question would arise in general and just generally trying to generally true but look the scope there are some weird exceptions and nooks and crannies in thirteen thirty want to rising under jurisdiction or soem short but i don't know not if you didn't care you guys didn't seek sanctions did you know  so your position is basically since the since the intervention case had been filed intervention requests it was lifted alive the issue that the court has to decide is whether the court once it held that there was no federal jurisdiction over rounder's case whether it still had jurisdiction to do anything at all in this case such as so that if and when the case goes up to the supreme court it's clear whether there is a jurisdictional issue i mean that what's broadly practical argument if any do you have for throwing the case in this case yeah i i think the there there would be the practical effect would be that if the plaintiffs wish to pursue it now why shouldn't is the benefit to this to society of throwing this case out and forcing them to file a new complaint rather than treating the intervention motion as the complaint judge posner i'm not sure i can identify any great benefit to  equivalent of a complaint go ahead litigate the case sure you could say that i think there there may be a little bit of us a slippery slope issue of what a slippery slope issue that i don't see the slippery slope ish that's a slippery slope no just that that if if we're just looking to you know let people drop in and drop out of cases while the case is going on right i don't necessarily throw out a case just because one of the janus had been co plaintiff swith the governor in the original complaint i think if they had been co plaintiff in the original complaint and had included in the original complaint there separate cause of action which they included in their their complaint right invention i think the result would have been different yes so why any particular reason we ought to treat this is different because they came a little  later my submission your honor and i i want to be clear on this are our principal sure i mean frankly my clients would be delighted if you throw this out and say there was no jurisdiction they have to start over but i am not arguing that i'm not arguing that position today what i am saying is there is an issue that this court has not addressed its intention with decisions of both this court and the supreme court and i think the court needs to resolve  it particularly because this case may well go up to the to the supreme court and i'm not convinced that it's such an easy issue which seems to be totally trivial so what what what are the preceden but there is categorical language in in there that says you know there's nothing left in which the movement could intervene after the existing suit was was held to be you know the outside of jurisdiction you know and similar language and perhaps a little but even more apt in the supreme court's texas portland case that it i have a lot more i could say judge posner but i think i've i've had you that you've been my name is carl draper and i'm here on an issue unique to the teamsters local nine sixteen this is a case that the plaintiffs have portrayed is a very important issue it may have the  appearances that it may be something to be taken up by the united states supreme court and i agree that the case is important to the extent that the case important however there is also important that th right of the teamsters to not have to defend a claim two separate times is well established in the law and the true claims by brian trid against the teamsters are precluded he had his full opportunity whatsoever no allegation against the teamsters only bryan trigg does and bryan trigg should be barred if he is teamsters should have been dismissed when was the truth kate litigation including when was the trigger litigation concluded concluded yes the the final the history of it was the trigger litigation commenced prior to even the governor's a complaint in this case the appellate court addressed mr triggs dismissal by the state labor relations board prior to his intervention in this case and when when the final yes remedy came after this case and when was the remedy the remedy was i think last june i would understand that mr tree might be barred from seeking reimbursement from june of last year forward and here could he benefit from injunctive relief mr trigg has no monetary loss from june forward because the final relief he obtained was that he donates his money pursuant to the state law to a charity of his choosing and it goes directly to them so there is no monetary relief that he has not fully obtained injunctive relief the the only possibility of any injunctive relief would be a declaration that the statutory scheme indeed is and constitutional and therefore we wouldn't have to go through any of these procedures like a statutory exemption for religious reasons but that claim is what is precluded because mr trade had his opportunity to present his claim to the illinois appellate courts when he first review so mr draper let's suppose some time later in only in the sense that then the union wouldn't be cold but the union is not collecting his dues anyway he's paying his dues himself directly to the american diabetes  continue to do that or would he would have no interest in making him do they act and the state law would probably fall for being unconstitutional he could continue to do list of them or not so over had undermined the basis for that commitment that he had made it would be free to spend his money as he wished i would and i would agree with that and get out and that would not be barred by any sort of it is and it is because mr trigg presented his claim as a person who did not want to associate with unions whatsoever so indefinitely into the future he would need to abide by the settlement or the resolution under abood decades after a buddha has been overruled well there i have only because he didn't avail himself of the opportunity to present this challenge when he was in the illinois teleport where he could have and should have presented this very claim he's making a facial challenge that the statutory  is unconstitutional now it's the very same statute that he had before the appellate court and that appellate court has all the power necessary to hear anything raised by his record that would have included his ability to say my first amendment rights of association are violated and he could have obtained all of his relief that he should see instead he made a deliberate choice and instead only argued the statutory claim and in illinois there is a clear wall that this court would follow prohibiting people from splitting their claims and that's the problem that we face here he split his statutory claim but he had the opportunity and he argued constitutional issues of due process in fact in the appellate court which be alike his argument that he never had his opportunity he's had his one bite at the apple in this case should be dismissed harbor in both those cases the individuals not allowed to proceed as an independent separate claim because they couldn't proceed as an independent separate claims and tech support and cement it was because the individual did not comply with the complicated service and notice requirements of the statute issue and it talked armor the individual did not own the quick property that was at issue so in both cases intervenor proposed intervener was not allowed to proceed separately because he couldn't proceed independently court or to the illinois state labor board i'm sorry labor board because neither had jurisdiction over that claim and if there's no questions on either point i have no thank you very much t