before today four argued cases the first is martin versus united states case number one seven two two two four and a feel from the decision the united states court of federal claims that you have to have rights under twenty four seventy seven and i think that's a debatable proposition as to whether private parties can ever have such rights or or or whether they're only governmental rights but putting that question aside  does it really say it does say if you go ahead and use it you could be subject to prosecution but of course you haven't been subject to that prosecution yet right there isn't and it doesn't say as far as i read it that at whether or not well certainly there the government made alternative arguments one is there's no right to take it to the court of federal crimes and that even if there were a right to take your your claim for believe you have these rights it doesn't say you don't have these rights and who've did they supply you with a general counsel opinion before she was to write and i read that general counsel opinion as sort of a classic i concluded that these rights are only public rights but it's a close call and there's lots of arguments on the other side i mean why isn't that enough for you to say they're not permanently saying that that we are forever barred from making a challenge say we caution that and i'm quoting we caution that anyone using the national forest lands in the no author of manner may be subject to criminal civil liabilities i i don't as it being the top of denial that that you would like for us to believe this letter is i believe read against the proceeding sentences and paragraphs it is when they say we've looked at what you say you have  rely one of the facts that the court might upon is that that those private entities actually helped build the road or or contributed to either the monetary building of the road or the see that the government built the roads there's no evidence of the government building this particular road in fact the government didn't have any interest in this property until the force reservations were really no interest from the government building in iraq now it was later maintained and i don't think that we've disputed that after it was erected and structured by the mine companies that later on it was taken over by the state of mexico and they established of highway there as well and the county of sand off maintains those roads for a long  and the application for a perk in the process of applying for the permit you waived whatever interest you may have had in the not even their kids if you disagree with your friend on the other side who says that the actual forms that you  that even if they are originally contemplated to be highways the point is that the easement is given not just to governmental entities but to private parties under the appropriate circumstances  there are several others who ultimately conclude that that there is not such a right but in each instance they assume that there could be and then they also say that whether such right exists is defined by state law but there are but a private easement is different than a public highway and there can be easily it's along a railroad there can be easily it's along a highway and that doesn't take away the private right right but there are again only alleging are as to fo definition if you said we would granted if you agreed that you have no private easement rights then you would fit within coombes i don't i guess possibly but there's nothing here like regulations and then we have the rights that talk about the application for parliaments forgetting that so what are the normal regulations when you say i mean if it is that clearly justice alito said or the majority sa too much but he but he never does address what the middle ground might be so if you concede that there are lots of other requirements like environmental impact studies etc for the for the forest service to grant anything in particular the forest service can't even determine what level of new program view is going to be required so it is you know it is a process that it could be expensive this is the cost of actually building a road to grant the permit and they have a problem is that once we're done on that road the process of asking for a permit now they're going to assure that we acknowledge that we were legally obligated to get a permit to begin appendix eighty six eighty seven this is from april twenty trial the forest service look this is been a really unfortunate situation for you guys terrible fire terrible flooding and now your roads have about a road that's built after nine hundred sixty three but they didn't think they needed a private road easement because they think they have been there already and that doesn't again mean that they are free of regulation right so you can look at yet they don't get have a final permit decision so it'll be harder for us to render an advisory opinion at this point and that's exactly where we hark you're right we don't we don't have anything close to knowing how these the forest service regulations are going to apply to the possible future applications that these plaintiffs might one day file which they are required to file if they want to do ground surveying activities in the national forest whatever the source of their rights to me and there once again is nothing in this forest service letter that says there are in any type of way of our rights or claims it's simply reiterating it's critical and if it and in fact if you look at the paragraph i haven't been focused on finally we know that you're not in the service that is the intention of the landowners to utilize and repair the roads or station or road associated with the best of these went in the near future process but but by virtue of their letter even just this letter but just in a position where if we then engage after asking them what we need to do they say you need to get a patent and recognize you don't have a property right that's where this becomes an issue this letter is noted a standoff between landowners that have an interest in commercial interest in establishing their mine properties which is one of the if that's a possibility and you're saying it's a real possibilities and maybe we should go through the permitting process and this whole thing fleshed out as to what the roads are actually going to be used for i mean if they're going to be used for the enjoyment of this land this land walk property surrounded by national forest and you were  originally granted some sort of right away ingress and egress from that property then maybe that's what you should you should get if you win but now you're talking about something else i think are these are may be a mining operation or there are discussions about it after the last conscious fire mistruth there's not a lot of enjoyment of this probably from the scenic recreational value that's available but it still has absolutely no commercial mind i so if you asked for a permit and they said as a condition of your permit you can't use your property for commercial purposes then you might be in a crude unconstitutional conditions circumstance but we're not there yet perhaps but my point is that also and i mean we are i really do believe that when they few have to surrender your government that we're going to get into this goes to your question about whether or not it actually granted permanent mark or the question about going through that process and the prohibitively expensive condition of getting anybody else since and going through what