proceed according to thank you i would i believe this case has been fully briefed to the court is well aware of the facts and circumstances underlying the present action i would only like to call this court's attention that the subject matter of the oil reserves off the coast of california has become an issue of national and worldwide importance in the present climate in that sentence my client to a grandfather channel islands and the coast is essential one of the largest oil reservoirs in the world i only emphasize this because the same indicate that the case is already been decided between the oil companies and the united states government in the court of claims and in an action untitled amber it's not finished yet so i defrauded his wife and the federal government and everybody in sight by creating a separate property trust so he called it or weren't or wasn't sure i'm sorry wasn't that issue apologize for stating it this way but we have alleged your honor this case the twenty million dollars that came out of that federal case trial with misappropriated by the federal court itself on appeal his request for seven hundred fifty thousand dollars a court  please the court i'm michael the zoning county of santa barbara leading off for defendants below the district court took judicial notice of the prior state court actions the plaintiff still seeks to relate again but which would be forbidden defacto appeals in a district court the district court for example quoted the state probate courts finding the plaintiffs share of his parents the state was remaining in trust for the remainder of his life because plaintiffs sherry means in trust the california probate code provides for the california probate courts continuing interim jurisdiction over those trusts page twelve of the district court several minutes tells us that this case is really about court just missile on any ground supported by the record here the record supports dismissal of plaintiffs read litigation through the probate exception through the worker feldman doctrine through the anti injunction former regional director of the national park service a former m p s employee the united states itself for federal agencies the united states district court fiscal clerk and the trial attorney from the united states department of justice to try the case in determining just compensation here on ars the federal apple leaves filed their own motion to dismiss and raise the grounds below that i'm going to discuss in just a moment and although the district to former members of the united states house of representative or shielded by legislative immunity any action all actions in fact discussed in the complaint concerning those two individuals to deal with either the introduction of  of inheritance and california does not recognize that toward in order to bring an action under the federal tort claims act that tort must come from recognized state law if california has no such recognized toward there is no such allegation in the complaint no individual act by any of these defendants linked to our damage specifically done to mr greenie mr green his family admittedly thought there was oil for a trial for just compensation they were not raised there were no mineral rights asserted in the trial for just compensation a federal jury determined that the proper just compensation for the taking of this land was more than twelve million dollars that result cannot now be disturbed under a bit in its claim even if it could it's too late a begins cause of action in the state of california must be brought within two years the federal jury determined just compensation in nine hundred ninety nine jurisdictional bar all of them are state court officials acting in their official capacity at the time thank you this trust corpus with the remainder of this trust for corpus to go to his children parents from the moment that the trust is alive it is in her sitting in the state court the internal affairs of the process or a state court matter a trust continues throughout he trusts life time until it is terminated or forward distributed and until the trust is fully distributed and no longer subject to the court's jurisdiction that is only when the state court loses jurisdiction or is no longer necessary so in light of marshal the marshal i believe that marshall was very clear in allowing the state court to continue to exercise its in rem jurisdiction these are daily monthly yearly issues in fact the court california probate code specifically s an annual requirement for an accountant and would not be pursued into the federal court for that angle accounting and any other issues in the state court regarding the internal affairs whether it's a trustee are left to the state court marshal has not disturbed that the that continues further i just wanted to state that probate code section seventeen zero zero three california probate code specifically  that a trust in room jurisdiction over the trustee in rome jurisdiction over the beneficiaries thank you lawyer who was retained years after all of the events that took place occurred he represented mr greeny from july of two thousand and one to august of two thousand and one when mr grenier retain mr mccarthy somehow  stated in the complaint you have no claims here so somehow all of a sudden mr ward is involved in this as you will note from the operative first a medical point which brings us here today mr ward is not even mentioned until paragraph forty nine which is found on