ue this court almost took a run at a couple of times and you can see th this statute in state action as it affects the elimination of st position mortgages was decided but hasn't  understanding of the general practice is that if you don't pay your property taxes the county gets a little money they can foreclose on that lien and often they do that wipes out all the other lien holders including no bank holding the market so under your theory why wouldn't that also be taking because this situation presents an anomalous one in which unlike the tax context and unlike the mortgage context in which you have non judicial or judicial foreclosure the entity doing the taking here is essentially a stranger with respect to the subject matter of the transaction a is not a state ringback and you enter into a mortgage contract you are in privity and everybody knows that you can i can see that interest and the government by virtue of the direct taxing relationship has a level of dignity which is equal to that of a mortgage bank involved in the institution but here and this is really the weirdness of this statute that the panel grappled with four years ago and borne valley here you have essentially a commercial and relationship stranger the h o way coming in out of left field and it's basically foreclosing an extremely tiny ween which does not is not entitled to the same dignity of a state tax relationship that everybody knows exists insisted from the start of the relation with a ball of about why i mean everybody if it what it what it turns on is what everybody knew from the beginning of the relationship everybody knew from the it's really more as if the state of nevada had passed a law in titling an alien class of entities to take the property of a different class of entities that's really the best way to look at this this isn't really like a tax lien because it's a unique statute there's no other analog until after two thousand and ten so the thing that the h always like to say and the state court system amplifies which is well new this it's just completely literally fictive for twenty years there's no reported case doing this no one ever did this and no one knew it was a and so it was a reinvention of the law over twenty years into the statute it was obviously a serious mistake because the nevada legislature in its next session went back and said no the statute doesn't mean that we're fixing it that's just wrong and so it's that the court decision itself does though i think that is correct because of the prominence of notice requirements in the essence of what i do process claim is and because takings operates in a fundamentally different way this is not baked into the structure of takings we've simply argued this is it taking but it became a taking the way nevada supreme court surprisingly decided then to interpret it and it did rob the parties of notice and of course there is a relationship of sorts between takings and due process though there are distinction constitutionality that order was withdrawn with panels and let me fifteen in two thousand and sixteen i argued this issue reach to the born valley panel which thought it was easier i suspect to decided on the due process ground and choosing in that case not to reach the takings ground which i believe was  litigation i've been trying to throw this issue at the th circuit for four years i think it's vitally important and long overdue for decision judge and if you don't group in test wells fargo had actual notice h o or closure sel just thirteen we were under we grant that under nevada state law which we don't want to fight our way through about five layers of arguments that the foreclosure notices are deemed conclusive evidence that they were in fact sent so that's not an issue but again and this is all through their briefing when you're going to take away somebodies property it really doesn't matter what the public knows that one hundred and fifty years of the mechanism by which the statement elect to do always in the vatican and what happened was we had a lot of them yet in litigation this circuit declared the statute on august th we went through our portfolio declarations to enforce border valley  case decided that there is no taking they acknowledge there is state action in passing the statute but both live in a supreme court and the th circuit as said that taking a  that because a private person will be subject to constitutional a deviation every time they take a remedy which is afforded by a state law here the statute was passed in one thousand nine hundred and one so it was on the books long before the bank took their interest in the property the c c and r s were recorded october th twenty thousand and thirty five years almost before wells fargo took their interest in the property when the former owner know until that nobody has interpreted the statute for there was no authority decision interpreting the statute to work like the us but that there would be the super priority thing that would wipe out the m history not necessarily and one matter is not on the record and one is part of the record the u c i you away as own commentary where they come and say that it's always been presumed that once they got sir with the notice of foreclosure that they would pay the six months or the easier way so six months as opposed to that is nine months it was assumed that it would be the super party portion of the lien and proceed and your client purchased the home for i guess just over five thousand be cause wells fargo because of the because it is such a tiny and they had a simple remedy all they had to do was pay and back their own required the nine months the original as a hard but they always had their remedies available to them and just to sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing they cannot come to this for now and ask for we have to have a sense that it's like well i guess that's i guess of the outstanding questions for me is is if the if the notice of sale did not specify the super priority or should be how is wells fargo supposed to protect the interest in its property can you address the the armstrong case which wells fargo relies on which seems to stand for the proposition that at least some of the time when you have a legal regime that wipes out an earlier leader that can be a taking so how do you ignored matthew says elbridge and it's exactly why the notice is going to quit to the point of your question judge were given there were three prongs in that test the rd prong as to whether notices and matthews versus a bridge is the government interest you meaning any additional burden from that if you beat the four corners of what we've got under as one hundred and sixteen it's a thing that if you got it in a bank you don't know they're taking the house that's the four corners of the statute it's also a motion to dismiss they don't even put in evidence the mr bone mr jacobson appreciate it thank you for having to deal with the technical difficulties we apologize for what we're doing the best we can we really wanted to hear oral argument on