these and we couldn't find any so we brought this case and it was imminent that we get relief because the publications of the f a a made poster disciplinary hearing about facts again these publications not for a case like this and then the judge notes that you actually have to be a party to be able to appeal so we'd have to intervene how could we intervene in a settled case it's not possible and there was no can't appeal it in to go through a i mean there's law all over the place you can feel feel settled case you just can't and then we're not even a party so i salute that is correct we didn't make an attempt to appeal but we we looked at it and concluded that we couldn't do it settlement that said you know what i reject my settlement i pull it back and then they appeal to see whether or not they could pull back their settlement that was a part of you also not party intervening and stating you want to change this case and then the bigger part about it we looked at three years of their narratives decisions effects were targeted it was specifically targeted nobody else who started  at so if they had done their standard decision which said rules this is a rule it was violated here's the fine it wouldn't have been a problem and if their decision hadn't been your stitch we we were unicorn we were the only entity trading that fell into this disposition we treated rolling spot all right which which this court jurisdictional rus we were we didn't really care about the decision that we're not trying to reverse the decision we're trying to get remedies for the damages that we were slandered for and it wasn't the decision that slandered the decision was or normal decision subject to jurisdiction and and at the end of the day the relief we wanted couldn't do it by reversing that decision it wouldn't have done anything for us and we suffered severe monitor miss a company that was making substantial would have had an obligation to have reparations they didn't because nobody was harmed they wanted to get rid of this traitor and there weren't any other ones like effects they were they were in it and there sorts of there's all sorts of quotes in our complaint referencing articles work and f a talks how they want to get rid of this o t c training it's bad it's this and that the fact of the matter is they had studies  we were targeted and we were damaged but with we didn't have standing to appeal we just didn't and now you go to other remedies you get waiver of rules was piled and started simultaneously and then what rules would we want to waive we'd want to waive or so that we could appeal appeal doesn't do anything force it wasn't it wasn't the decision that's our issue it was what they did with it afterwards rules would have made effect to to have given us notice the pursuit ing allowed us and we could intervene but at this point i bet i got four other state claims and i'm not pursuing the constitutional claim i put that in the priest i don't think modification rules would do anything force and as you know ziggler has recently come down with i don't think the constitutional claim would would get us monetary relief which is what we're in profits it was accurate complaint directly challenges both the procedures used and the conclusions reached in a disciplinary education by and it effects advances due process claim where it says that and if they used insufficient procedures it says that it should have gotten notice an opportunity to participate for some kind of post hoc process and either didn't get any notice that they know that that's that's correct or are they did and the allegation made by effects that the adjudication was deficient in that respect a the chance to decide that question but there's at least a possibility that that existed so the district court outlined several possible ways that effects could have gotten relief from this yet you see so for instance effects that have tried to file a motion to intervene and there's an order case from looking for guidance and well i think that the with the court can say that the remedy would not have been clearly useless i don't think the court is in the best position to decide how c f the sea would have considered its own rules but the relevant legal standard for exhaustion and doesn't require the court to decide one way or another what the agency would say the standard has to be that it's not clearly useless and in this case as a district court correctly held it's not clearly useless because there's a number of paths that would have been opened which was the best half of the ones t aired we have a protectable interest and see if the city is required to protect that but i think that what cannot be the case is that as effects claims there's some kind of a gap in the statutory coverage where they're not aggrieved enough to take advantage of the reach which is what effects is trying to do i think the court should consider what a jury solid would look like in this case effects would be arguing to the jury that an f a a error in the conclusions it reached in its disciplinary proceedings it would be saying that effects reasoning and i think that the cleanest way to resolve the case is to affirm and for the reasons given by the district court but we do have some alternative arguments i'd like to just mention quickly first of all i think that and if a is absolutely immune this really falls within the a creature of federal law and i don't think that congress intended to subject and it's a state log rules governing it's really federal disciplinary proceedings among other things i think congress directed challenges to and if  c not to actually state courts under state law moreover i think that the substance of what and if it does should be regulated by federal law that it was created literally as an entity a creature of federal law subject to the jurisdiction  somebody could settle a case right and then get their friend to go contest the case as a proxy and file an appeal and do it end run around it's absurd it's not it's not designed so that it effects outside and wrong they should be they should be liable for this was intentionally wrong it wasn't an accident you look at their history of decisions like i said ok if that is the only warning the only one with the detail about stuff like that was done to har want do whatever they want to harm anyone with no fear there's no checks and balances on and that's not what this is about they acted intentionally outside of their delegated authority if they knew they didn't have jurisdiction o facts and they did this to destroy the facts there's no doubt that's what they did and that's why they should be immune for that so it doesn't fall within the heartland of america you'd actually falls outside of it if you turned their position doesn't make sense they want everything they want to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want and just like i'm absolutely amused nobody has that you don't have that