what are your honors that john johnson representing finger ventures every time i come to an oral argument i really want to add something that's not in the briefs and for once i think there's a chance to do it because even so many cases coming down right and left in the supreme court affecting taking judgment that citizens of the one state are prohibited from suing their own state in federal court but he goes on to say that but i don't like a whole lot of things the majority opinion sa the implication that i first got from that statement was well you must think the majority decision is consistent with the constitution as it was written  and ninety when they were deciding that case well what changed between seventeen ninety three and eighty ninety that bore on that issue and others was civil war in the fourteenth amendment suits against the state by citizens of another state that's the very type of the dialogue privileges and the least equal protection that the fourteenth amendment now says is unconstitutional you can't do it is just a fundamental right that every so auburn has to abide by and as we point out in our brief you know you can analyze the whole situation from chicago burlington the courts the federal bench has carefully protected the legitimate interest of the states by requiring all you need do is provide a remedy that will to the california supreme court california supreme court comes back and says  maybe you could answer a procedural question for me your client currently has outstanding partially satisfied judgment and why wouldn't your client be able to receive installment payments over the course of however long it with a given their response by the california supreme court that the court districts can't raise the taxes in order to pay the full amount of the judgment all at once or urged that the intervening bankruptcy simply discharge any confusion i thought you had received a permission from the bankruptcy court to proceed with your they deliberately did not ask for installment tameness because they couldn't demonstrate in solvency to get into chapter nine and that's that's that's that's that's the bind we're stuck yeah i see your predicament i  don't understand if the port district actually has to file bankruptcy because it's liabilities exceed its assets and doesn't that definitively answer the question is  qualify for bankruptcy which they do is to news that was the at the last the case against the district what it essentially established was look california has the power to regulate their local en and as far as what taxes they can levy they have the power to say you don't you cannot levy taxes to pay this judgment that's over and done with we're not we're not challenging that decision there are no other about twenty million dollars short and the case is you know with record building and all these other things wound in here you know once we get that decision from the california supreme court now we started making work or film and right then because you know we were making two arguments which were outcome determinative which could have avoided it could have had a federal court ru that you can't you can't enforce prop thirteen in this fashion and we would have been then been able to recover against the port district and that was our guarantee clause argument  under forty two nine hundred eighty three you know that's and of course you know right now the only argument i see being advanced by the state before this court there has been a minute let me put it this way if they had not if the california supreme court had limited their discussion to california law as the nice circuit basically asked them to do they had none of this other language in there about what bankruptcy courts do and what they don't do and whether it could be a taking a discharge i would agree with the state it was waived when the states are abrogated when the states ratified the fourteenth amendment and that's if i go back to my justice harlan thing because you know it's quite fascinating because you know  under sense in that case and the basis for it is basically dissent is you know they've got to bring all cases in state court first and go have the reviewed by the united pretty attorney general representing the state of california justice nelson correctly a third when you asked who took the property certainly not the state with is case law and the ninth circuit on point is saying that there is no direct action a party claiming a constitutional violation must go through section one hundred eighty three that is the eighty three sex toy language and why should we apply first english in this case as suggested by helen because that was a footnote as occurred pointed out does not directly on point and the ninth circuit ha taking or whatever taking is being latched and there are remedies available as provided by congress that the romneys available to this particular and it was discharged in bankruptcy right now pelle is trying to recover the amount i was discharged and the company's supreme court has even analyzed this and said that couldn't be a taking so taking let's assume for the purpose of my hypothetical question that the court district was a creature of the state a state agency i take it there are provisions in the california probably government code for lawsuits against the state or state agency for condemnation and just compensation that is in my correct yes you're right ok but the defense here is it wasn't the state that took the the property it was a port district which is not an agency of the state and whatever remedies the state there they played of had it was against that entity and now the state is asserting it legitimate defense which has never been waived it is still enjoying sovereign immunity under the eleventh amendment to an action to indemnify the port district is that a fair characterization of your response absolutely yes yes actually help me think you know it is one of the points that were raised in the briefing below in which the park district was a separate have could file a claim with the state asking for just compensation so it's not as if nothing exists in this vacuum there are remedies out there so it's not clear in this particular case what  in federal courts the fourteenth amendment was passed a law in congress to specifically abrogate the summer in unity and areas in which congress has the power to just briefly i'd always say that thank you the california supreme court went much further than just aggression in our case what they say is for me my over available you can't bring an x party young type action to restrain it taking you can bring it to restrain a violation a guarantee clause violation of the procedural due process in the skies but not to prevent the taking there is no doesn't have sufficient assets to pay the judge it does seem to me if i understood the fog argument what this really comes down to is and it's him and i can certainly understand why i'm not criticizing the plaintiffs at all to satisfied judgment that it in this case you got what forty cents on the dollar but i mean i just don't see how that's any different from from a parallel situation in private come up short and i think the obligation clearly on the states under chicago burlington williamson county to make sure that revenue is there if it's not there the bankruptcy case and the state allows them to you know that federal government allows the fourth district to file bankruptcy only with the consent of the state  once the final bankruptcy the bankruptcy court asked to apply state law and what assets can be sought so now the state is in complete control as to whether a judge was going to be paid or