action which related to an injunction for relief given the fact that the bank has been sold and that would be the one that would be covered by any movements obviously we have an objection to that evidence coming in at this point but assuming the court was to go down that road we believe that affected by the earlier if you yes my client will be affected by the relief he gets the request is that the case be reinstated so that the constitutional takings claims in other words that the interference with his property right to sell the stock in the bank was interfered with now what we have by virtue of a sale of the thing to simply a bottom line if you will a mitigation number for which to balance the deal that was lost with the other with the other investor off in other words we had one deal that was lost we say by the improper interference with the f t i see now that the banks have been sold essentially have another number it's no different than a medication issue at this point and so we believe that the constitutional takings claims the first two causes of limited jurisdiction that you find in the district court for enforcement of an order but i don't see how you get around a language that says that doesn't have any jurisdiction effect by injunction or other otherwise the instruments or enforcement of any order to review modify suspend terminator set aside eighteen eighteen i want i don't see where the jurisdiction comes from here the three jurisdictions that have been in the appellate court to review well what the court determined which i believe was correct is that this was outside the scope of their order that their order did not by the terms they drafted buyer for the stock now subsequently three years later the bank is sold and the damages are fixed but that doesn't negate the conduct that occurred back in two thousand and three and i believe that the federal court properly realize it had jurisdiction because it read the plain language point the damages claim the appeal at this point in terms of damages revolves around a purely hypothetical question about what we can call the deal that never was and never will be where he sale the only thing we have in the record is the castle creek term sheet which was a sale of bank assets and liabilities and clearly within the the four corners of the prohibition order he still even material facts not in you plainly puts this matter in dispute on page eighty one of the excerpts of record my back number five squarely at issue if he had any kind of evidence to present to the district court that was the time to do it so the district court properly dismissed this claim for damage that's five ten us for seventeen so he didn't bring in the evidence that he needed to keep the case in court and even if he had he doesn't have a legal claim on you the takings  it was affirmed based on a summary judgment ruling and we were denied the opportunity to conduct discovery we moved under rule fifty six to conduct discovery we were prohibited you're prohibited from all the scope and when you want to sell your stock and thereafter it all went downhill from there so the characterization that it was that was taken from this document which was neither essential to the allegations of the complaint nor requirement there up to its understanding in order because the court wrapped that term sheet into our complaint when in fact that was not our position and in the in the application for t r o one of my clients did a declaration as to the stock sale and so it's our wanted to the problem was two days later sue a sponsor i got a telephone call from the court saying that the court was having trouble writing the ruling and that's when the ruling changed from granting me leave to amend to simply dismissing the case in the instant appeal and was on a train on a track and it was going one direction i can read them from the record understood thank you thank you