property tax card and the inflated assessment head the cost of spade that tax what they still have a cause of action and the answer to my hypothetical i believe is yes that they would still have a cause action and converse lee had they gone through the board of review hearing and the board of review had allowed their actually to testify and the board of review would have granted their relief and made the assessment at the mcnairy case from the supreme court why is our case different ok yeah we can look at it that way why the the court i mean as we know state taxation is protected very broadly from federal court interference we start with the tax injunction act we all agree this is not a tax injunction act case but in the fair assessment and real estate against me mary decisions supreme court pushed it one step further and said well actually even in cases that aren't under the tax injunction act there are still cases that are governed by comedy principles and we need to let the state authorities figure this out as it happened they didn't pursue some remedies in winnebago county the assessment went from fifty five hundred twenty five thousand which may well have been a very abusive assessment down to four hundred nine and they didn't push it any further to see if maybe the even lower assessment that the expert thought was proper should have been done they basically take the four zero nine so i don't know why that's shows a failure of state procedures i don't know why that's not the way things are supposed to happen  because that is not the focus of our complaint the focus of our complaint is the conduct that does the state actors did they ran roque what they did is causing create a separate cause of action because  the state officials or the local really local officials were doing this kind of thing but they've been given a lot of relief for for that namely you know the abusive assessment has been experience the difference here is constitutional rights that are involved is the retaliation regarding their first amendment speech and a further answer your inquiry your honor regarding fair assessment there was no first minute retaliation and the core and the only remedy that the player sought a fair assessment was that damage was what was paid and what should have been paper had the property been assessed at the average rate the entire case of fair assessment was regarding the system itself regarding is that these plaintiffs are saying that systematically we think it's unconstitutional what st louis county is doing here the st louis county is assessing people who have n improvements at thirty percent percent higher and then if you're successful on an appeal you're going to be subject to get targeted for a reassessment and next tax year and what the course said is that it is comedy because that is something that's up for the state of missouri st louis county and you can seek redress within that system itself regarding the tax and principles that were of mine is it to me seems to me it would be very easy for somebody challenging a tax assessment done at a very vocal level to say my system is too high because the tax assessor hates me or something like that why is that subjective level even appropriate  for us to look at and that takes me even to these internal e mails that you are revising on even if they don't reflect particularly well on the writers of the e mails why don't we evaluate this on an objective basis they say they're using the remedies available to them they're getting relief is it annoying yes it's a defensive yes but as you said you know that's not unique to this kind of  again in this case the difference is is that it's not the system itself does that issue here is the conduct of the state actors if they were doing what they were supposed to be doing at acting as saying that if if the original assessment of five twenty five had been made by somebody who was pure of heart and spirit you know it just moved and when it maybe they don't county do nothing about it maybe made a terrible  e over and over rated the pool that you wouldn't be here and then you might not be here for the first assessment in the four zero nine again if we have this pure of heart person so so why i  paid the tax when they first received that august and then later did it after y and saw the emails then they would have this cause of action and the reason it is different and i mean because they would be entitled to a refund perhaps they could go to the with taxes that you pay and you ask for a refund if you paid too much that not possible because what we're dealing here is with retaliation for them exercising their first amendment rights is that the website that you're talking about prosecutor say there would be consequences for this action and it could it could have been anything at that just the taxes the cause of action is the conduct of the state actors and what they did so it could have been a curb in the cost was why the change their name and they decided not to they decided the frustrate their purposes such but in this case is what they did to retaliate against them was to inflate the ta so that is why capra and fair assessment are different than the case we have here with the cost groups because it's now that just we're not asking for an injunction without asking to interfere with the the taxing process of dollars that's correct yes that was my point when i first started your credit card as my position is that separate and apart from the taxing process here by the conduct of these defendants they cause and created this cause of action that the relevant question is whether when there is a problem even the kind of abuse problem that you're talking about with state affords in its courts plain adequate incomplete remedy and i capital of the seventh circuit in capra said if you had an issue in terms of the constitution you know the tax you could have brought it through p terry could went to circuit court and whatever it took the process as long as it took took however the difference in capra is that they were talking about the tax it south what they were offended by was the position that well because we may or may not have had an association or an affiliat twenty five thousand looks terrible in light of the evidence of animists that the cost have brought together so it's hard for me to imagine that there's anything good faith going on about ancillary set of theories about bad faith animal abuse of process and the like yes your honor i believe the illinois state courts would and i believe that that is consistent with the supreme court's decision and fair assessment i think it's in fair assessment of the allegation a was that the people that the citizens who were appealing their assessments were being asked us did a fifty percent higher rate twenty two percent thirty three per cent and then that they were being retaliated against the next year for having brought that complaint similarly in hayden put in the property owner similar in this case wouldn't allow the assessor on their property and they were then subject to a very large increase in that case the seventh circuit held that fair  assessment applied i think they also held that the individual board members themselves were entitled to immunity for their actions we don't have that situation here and they dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice simply because that case that cause of action remained pending in the i believe in p tab at that time capper as well alleges the same three constitutional violations that the cosmos have alleged here retaliation equal protection and procedural due process and this court found whether on equivocally that the illinois state courts were the assessment in the property border for a view for winnebago county and then apparently were satisfied with that because they took no further action so i note that the district court there is some supplemental claims the district court relinquish jurisdiction over those state law claims is it your sense that they would still be able to go to the state courts on these theories that are now before us or is it not too late i believe that well the district court just missed the federal claims with prejudice so it would relinquish jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims act if this court were not willing to consider dismissal of those claims as well with prejudice i think under the terms of the district court's order they could refile those pending the statute of limitations in state court and we would probably be required to deal with those there i think we would deal with them on the same basis that we briefed and asked the district court to dismiss those claims there i believe that this court can also resolve those claims here i think that the same arguments with which we have brought the twelve b six motion in the district court the supplemental remaining state law claims so you didn't file across appeal to ask to reach the state law claims so it seems to me they're just out of the case at this point did not file across appeal but i think that the why allows the seventh circuit even where cross appeal is not filed to consider those claims can support the judgment on as the appropriate ground upon which those claims should be dismissed with prejudice the federal constitutional claims that the basis for that is the existence of the illinois state property tax system that that same reasoning applies to the fragile and assessment claim because the illinois law and the courts have borne this out abolished any tort for constructive fried by the passage of that system i think if it is the same if it's appropriate to apply comedy i think that it's also appropriate to apply to the fraudulent assessment claimant just with prejudice and toby six in general requires the plaintiffs to state a claim which is plausible on its face if this court were inclined to apply the same reasoning to dismiss the claim for fraudulent assessment that would just leave the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and i don't believe that under any reading of the complaint that that states a claim under illinois law and all of those are perfectly good arguments to make to the state court if this winds up being refiled may not you know i don't know what's going to happen and maybe it will be fired by limitations there's a lot out there that it's unclear i'm just saying that those claims are not before us right now they were relinquished that me that's what thirteen sixty seven on that ground you know the plaintiffs here i think are dealing the cosmos are dealing with a couple of issues which prevent if we're going to have now you know this to just the federal claims that prevent them from any relief one prevents them from getting into the front door of the federal court which is the issue of comedy the other prevents them from a covering anything in any court in order to state a claim for a constitutional  have an injury and they have stated no injury on target they tried to describe you know just the emotional distress of feeling abused by the various taxing  it's not a particular dollar instant injury virtually some kind of injury or do you think people you know songs the bottom line winds up being ok you know the taxing authorities can do certainly the cases capra i hate to talk about you know that you know joe if there is a problem take it to the state courts it doesn't deny that there conceivably could be a problem you're just saying the state courts are quite capable of address i think if you look at each they make three constitutional claims first memo retaliation procedural due process and equal protection we have we would have to take each of those separately to show why they have failed to state a claim  with respect to the first amendment retaliation and part of that task requires them to show adverse conduct and as part of that adverse conduct requires to show that there was an adverse action that had a chilling a fact i don't believe by that any fair reading of the cosmos complaint that they can argue that any action on behalf of any of the defendants in this case had any chilling effect on anything that they did  they continued to file they filed the protest they started a petition and they you know there was nothing that actually had a chilling effect on anything that they are on any action that they whether that's just the really tough people don't get constitutional protection and we can easily chilled people do and that's doesn't strike me as a very good rule perhaps not your honor but they still don't have any damages and in terms of what they did so again what we have here is the damages are different and as we play that is emotional distress that you suffer from this and there's no redress if he would appeal this to p tat after he received the end mind you at the time that he went to court on february twentieth twenty fifteen he did know about the e mails he didn't know about them at all it wasn't until he did the f l y that he found out and he started receiving all this information so there is a situation where we have tangible evidence that says this is