having difficulty seeing how your clients can make that showing well that argument depends on the fact that the procedures city is employing are targeted especially at communities of color and  forms of ownership such as h d s c h t f c's exist precisely to allow lower income working people an opportunity to establish homeownership and develop equity and yet those are the kinds of properties against which the city is proceeding in this type of action which is costing wishes surplus equity and that's the basis for the claim of standing to seek future relief if there's a need  short on reason excuse me i'm not sure i follow the logic of what you just said the individual plaintiffs are the ones that would have to show that they are likely to be targeted in the future and i'm not sure it cuts it to say that the program operates with a disproportionate impact on people of color it operates taking it at face value at the disadvantage of homeowners of color and if there's no indication that these particular plaintiffs are likely to again become owner succeed the fact that people of color may be more likely than other people to be subject to this program doesn't say anything about how likely anyone is to be a nd time in default to the city with respect to taxes and subject to this program even if people of color are more likely than white not continue the policy or the policy of not of or policy of the state but rather individual acts of individual officers but here we have the city reconfirming its intent to continue no no no no i'm sorry but when you're when there's also a case like lions it's not just about whether the city does or doesn't have a generalized chokehold policy it's about whether this particular person is likely to run up are separate issues but you know we have to address all d of the claims that are in the case and some might go one way and some might go a different way i appreciate that you are and we actually considered amending the complaint a problem with the standing as to the forward looking things we would certainly attempt to ensure that by him and pleading you're saying it face value for the moment but what the plaintiffs are challenging they say is not the foreclosure process not the effort to collect taxes by seizing the property they're challenging what comes after so is it a violation of the texan junction act or the comedy corollary of the t i a if you want to call it that to question the city's ability to seize a property that may have equity of fifty thousand dollars in order to we say again suppose i appreciate that point and let's assume for the sake of this question that you are correct that the plaintiffs have not fully disavowed those other aspects of what they're asking for and that further let's even assume that you're correct that they couldn't get that relief consistent with any set of the doctrines you're relying on i'm still asking about what allows you to keep any excess equity that is seized that is in excess of the tax liability and not provide a means of remitting that to the homeowner and corollary to that whether you can or if you can't what is what procedural obstacle would there be to such a challenge even if in the end you would win it dollars from somewhere else and so if i may be a lawyer and sue me maybe you would but then why the reason you would is because you're stealing their money if you continue to take the exceptional value ar of the doctor and to the doctor not quantity which says that which is broader than the t i a and said that i guess i mean i'm yours i'm just i maybe you can help me i guess i'm just having some difficulty understanding how comedy would reach that far i mean if the plaintiffs if we assume they're not at all contesting their tax liability and they're making allegations of fundamental constitutional rights violations and the tax liability is not a relevant factor to those claims then i guess i'm not seeing hacks like realty is directly implicated by the excess value claim or the right to be free from racial discrimination or the due process claim it would seem to me comedy would basically reach anything in any way connected to taxes it reaches with so what am i missing your honor i think and you know in mcnairy for example the screen court  where st of all because of the way that the city deals with these properties there isn't a tax sale there isn't you know a discrete amount of money sitting around and so the challenge would require and the that the city chooses after collecting the tax after foreclosing on the property to just give it away to a rd party rather than to give back the excess  value to the taxpayer that's what the plaintiffs are challenging in this case or at least that's a piece of what they're challenging in this case i mean the fact that it may make it harder for you to collect taxes if you're precluded from doing something that has nothing actually to do with the collection of taxes that has to do with what happens after you foreclose on someone's property you know maybe as you say that's meritless but again we're not talking about the merits we're talking about we have to understand what the claim is on the merits but once we understand what it is the issue before us is whether they are allowed to bring a challenge to that right again you this scheme but if the nature of the scheme is to effect a taking of private property that is in excess of taxes that seems to me to be problematic for reasons or not if it's ok but it's either way it's entirely different whether you can challenge that to challenging anything about the city's right to impose a tax to calculate a tax and even to execute on property  in further and so of the tax if you then decide to affix to that set of tax collection procedures something else that for the sake of the argument isn't unconstitutional taking why it why does the fact that you're doing that as part of a something that you think is an efficient way of collecting taxes somehow turn this into a tax scheme they're not challenging the tax well is there an argument that they're essentially alluding to a line of cases in which we say an adversary in the context of a litigation committed misconduct and we may need to reference the state to state court judgment in order to measure the moved away from they are all of these harms are caused by the state court judgment to all of their claims are somehow connected to the state court judgment which is something quite different assume for the moment  that you are correct that they cannot challenge the foreclosure and we say that part of their claim is barred by record feldman let's just assume that what about the part that challenges what the city does there are two pieces one what the city does after the foreclosure with the property namely give it to your clients and not give back some part of the excess value and to what is challenge also is what the city did before the foreclosure which was according to the plaintiffs and these claims may or may not be valid on the merits  to engage in selective prosecution in effect in how they targeted the foreclosures out of those claims run afoul of rockefeller i don't believe the claims with respect to surplus value on the basis of rockefeller's man but then i think you're saying but the district court should have because that  claims are only for the surplus value after the taxes been received by the city we are not seeking to set aside all of the t p t program we are seeking to understand it and the claim that it was a failure to provide just compensation the district court did not find that claim to be barred by record fell and then it was only the t i a or the comedy part that claim i correct about that that that's how i that may need to reference the state judgment but are not seeking to set the judgment aside we are not open dryly i just want to point out as to rightly it was a non presidential pro se case in which the plane two of the appendix or they can continue to use the t p t program as long as they pay the surplus value back to the homeowners the city's defense that somehow because it's easier for them to violate plai execute upon for a five dollars debt and the city saying that they can keep the ninety five dollars where is the party it had twenty five dollars bills they would have only got to keep the five that simply does not make sense and there's certainly no supreme court precedent or decision of this court that compels that i think that just last point would be that the city said at least twice and in their presentation that this claim for taking could be brought in state court and that is at best an empty offer because we know that such claims have been consistently rejected in state court the only claims that have been permitted were by judge part now to whose decision is being appealed by the city which is arguing that once the four month redemption period has expired there can be no further challenge to be made in state court and to the extent that they're arguing that taking claims have to be exhausted st in state court again nick explicitly all rules that so unless there are further