out in the following sections and one of those sections or it is section fifty four restatement judgment which basically says concurrent ownership of property does not constitute the substantive legal relationship which will justify the imposition of that says if you want to do quick check you have to submit a star in a motion for chrissake and identification of the project and a project schedule what's right for the project is alternatives that's what they say they admitted repeal the alternative see which is of taylor the first piece is that taylor does not concern at all and entirely separate ground of decision that the circuit court relied on when he considered each of the petitions for intervention and when to consider the relatives were actually startled as intervention petitions the emersons although they took in and if they understand plaintiffs although they took an extension of time in order to appear they then filed a separate action so in our view they don't have the rights even of intervenors they certainly don't have greater rights than people who actually presented themselves in the eminent domain action but it but it doesn't matter whether they're regarded as the interveners or for  necessary parties to the point is that at the time they came forward this in this complaint for condemnation which was a filed after an ordinance was amended that was legislative process to the entire world that the city was attempting to acquire the cemetery that was in two thousand and two this is not a bit of a secret that the city was needing to acquire this when the f a a is decision was reached that was well publicized the true test publicized when there are on our own the city go apparently have knowledge who these living relatives work and did not seek to do anything about it until we got to the state court why weren't they brought into the there were a trusts which you know could not be protected by the church the church did not want the grades relocated but we were well aware there were people who did not object and there have been twenty eight distant tournaments already on a voluntary basis and there are nearly seventy other requests pending so it is not the case that everybody objects but the church to not wish to make those records available unless the city agreed to the to a protective order and so we ventured with the matter was put before was not required for property interest purposes for due process purposes that everybody with an interest in the cemetery be a party to that case and so they were we have made great efforts to identify relatives we have published  the newspaper that we have worked with the special master and eventually a large number of relatives were identified and they were given notice in response to those notices some relatives didn't come forward but the circuit court's ruling was fine you can not speak to the separate ground on which the circuit court limited the rights of the relatives to reason that again religion climbs the road of intervention and conditions on intervention simply don't those words don't appear did not comport with due process but in doing so the court actually recognized six settled exceptions which are a kind of virtual representation in none of those six instances is the instance federal courts in this country is gone let no one ever speak of it again right now with regard to that exception for a substantive legal relationship if you don't discuss the aspect of the legal relationship you talk about in your not to change the exception so i'm sorry if we weren't clear we do recognize that it is that the law requires a substantive legal relationship and this case we say that exists for two for two reasons the first is that when the church and two of its members litigated in the federal court the children asserted the religious claims that the relatives advanced the true church as an institution has no religious beliefs of its statement that was made in this it in a very different context in this case in the in the motion for appointment of a guardian ad litum the city pointed out that st charles does not and cannot represent all of the its own counsel to do that so there i don't know but some way out into relations between the members and the church and for that reason we do say that they are a proxy and an adequate substitute it's interesting to that that there was not a claim for intervention despite the publicity of the acquisition just by the publication of the complaint as required under eminent domain law despite this no gravity came forward until st john's members and those who are buried in the cemetery who share its religious views and the third are on the third one of course is is this proxy idea so we have adequate representation substantive legal seven thirty twelve eighteen and twenty five forty that the circuit ruled with regard to each attempt by the brothers to raise the religion claims that they would have to take the case as they issue is have the issues been litigated before the interveners presented themselves because you know this is a project as i say that that everybody who has walked out in a reviewing capacity has determined is necessary and must move forward expeditiously the church and the relatives have an interest in the laying moving the cemetery as long as possible so the circuit court is int repeatedly so at the outset these people coming in with notice and then the supreme court said it is you know what ten months is too long two years is too long we are done with religion claims  to know is it going to undermine the system of free public education to any sixteen in state wisconsin if the amish children are allowed to leave school at fourteen that claim is not even made by the government in that case and of course it wouldn't and the same is true in the central is it going to undermine enforcement of all the laws against pay already the native americans are allowed to use the drug for s purposes so the point is it wouldn't when the government program can tolerate exceptions it is of course appropriate to ask what is really gained in achieving a compelling government interest you really have to be staged out for sequence landings and something like forty miles out from the airport and potentially bad weather in the end it's not that it can't be done the f a a we did could not safely be done and when something ca don't address the problem and the federal government is never required to settle as as for at least restrictive means for something that doesn't advance the compelling interest that it's actually attempting to to to address done on the religion claims because the other day i actually assumed that strip scrutiny was the applicable standard in the interest of saving time for this terribly important project the f a a did  final and conclusive on that issue and for that reason to separate is simply not necessary and not appropriate and that finding by the f a a i should add that the second circu brought to the state court they can only be brought to the federal courts of appeal they can only be brought within sixty days and the rockets issued in september of zero five so obviously the jurisdiction for the court to review it for a large number of reasons but neither can people who have the opportunity to participate who didn't participate through their or their church in the u k sion it's people can come in for half years later and say you know the entire world as it is because it was reviewed my point is is that it really is more of a focus on the expert agencies decision because the f a a is actually the entity that locates runways in this country government probably affects religious beliefs when it doesn't go to war in circumstances that people think are morally offensive the point is that the government and this is all levels of government this is directly under the first amendment itself and directly under the state constitution the government does not have to accommodate itself to religious beliefs nor even does it have to accommodate missing piece is the cemetery but of course that's why we're here they also don't dispute that ten center is actually this area for the project the city is actually building as i case and they rely on the fact the scales not in most cases it was actually possible to said that the property was not actually necessary for the project the government was actually building that our briefs for the rest of the issue justice mclaren ra situation where at this point in time the courts have been reluctant or i'm willing to address their constitutional responsibilities with regard to the protection of religious rights as well as with regard to the enfor