mr frederick were denied appeals of their summary judgments in foreclosure cases i brought a case in the district court and they were denied a constitutional right the r feldman doesn't apply for two big reasons one there's no procedural means under the facts of this case which are uncommon for an appeal to have been taken of the federal issue and second i don't understand that at all because even if you didn't realize that there was some procedural problem in illinois law until the illinois appellate court issued its decision you knew then i mean i wonder about that let's that you knew then you can file a petition for reconsideration you can file for leave to appeal to the illinois supreme court and we've had cases in which  even just an action of the illinois supreme court in the bar admission contests where there was a possibility of search of the supreme court triggered record feldman so you don't have to have a lot of opportunities in the state courts you just have to have meaningful procedural avenues and i've named to a motion for reconsideration in the illinois peleg for when you discover this procedural flaw that you're talking about and drawing to the attention state supreme court pursue the two procedural means you're talking about the motion for reconsideration i put they disagree the reason they exist you can't disagree that th disagree that they exist in fact the record shows that i tried in that sense but you have to earn the argument it's not on the basis of can i throw something up at night in the hope in a sense of a hail mary love is maybe it is actually because the point of the whole and you know this is the point of the whole ricker feldman doctrine is that congress has not given appellate jurisdiction to the lower federal courts over decisions by state courts and we are a lower federal court we as is the district court we're not the supreme court even if there's a federal issue you need to allow the state courts to resolve these things and ultimately i know it's a long shot believe me i've a takes the illinois law which is similar to the federal law couple white you cannot raise any new issues on an appeal that you didn't raise before i may throw a hail mary and they'll take pity on me and say do it but we're here is a matter of what the rules are and what your premise is that it's not an issue that you could have raised before and there are instances in the illinois courts where a brand new problem arises at the illinois pellet court level and that's the time you have to say something about it that's rule one thirty seven but it was not a brand new problem there rose at the illinois appellate court level if the illinois  in either of those cases that said we're going to create this new rule this rule is that you cannot appeal anything other than the upright propriety of the sale right after the sale is done then i would  one thirty seven exists for argument three seven phoenix s three seven and that's the way you do it this was not that circumstance if i had filed that i would have been shut out because  court didn't create a new rule there was a rule created by an illinois supreme court case that didn't come into existence until after i filed my brief but the point the point is that we cannot give you any relief here without setting aside the decision of the illinois courts and given you basically are very frank about this you want us to send it to the illinois courts that you can have another shot at it and  ever there's a rooker feldman problem that's it and the reason i disagree with you is because i'm not asking for another shift i'm asking you to say there's a federal issue here i'm not  illinois how to run its foreclosure proceedings and if illinois has an unconstitutional structure for foreclosure proceedings then that issue needs to be preserved from the first time you show up as a defendant in a foreclosure action under your very words from the first time you show up as a defendant in a foreclosure action i did exactly that in both cases so just because you lose doesn't mean the federal courts come in that i'm not here to ask you or any other federal court to say the summary judgment was wrong i'm here you are you're asking us to say in a sense you're asking us to say they revisit flawed set of procedures closing doors for issues to be raised at the time you would have liked to raise them and i'm not here to tell you that every state has perfect procedures that i am here to tell you that we're dealing with a federal state allocation of jurisdiction unless the homeowner does some things before the sales of proof once a sales approve the door does close quite considerably under the fundamental premise of the common law that applies in britain in the united states you're citing one case that was the case in two thousand and fourteen that case did not consider the matters that are set out in the one nine hundred sixty illinois supreme court case that says you cannot appeal anything until after the sale is final those issues that were not considered in the two thousand and fourteen case wells fargo first mccaskey were illinois supreme court three on one in addition to that the fact that that you seek or paraded into the into the mortgage foreclosure law illinois law has not it's not conclusively ruled on this i see my time is up but i i'm telling i'm telling you in as in a sense i am so i'm not telling you to say you know when i this is how you want to straighten it out what you're saying is what you've got right now is unconstitutional illinois this is our daily work up here in the seventh circuit hepplewhite gets to go back and have the summary judgments it give them a right to an appeal how that appeal turns out we don't know but it's within your bailiwick to say whatever you got here doesn't satisfy the federal system that the ricker feldman doctrine exists to preclude do you think that somebody in illinois who is in imminent risk of foreclosure may be lots of notices have come along or something like that  nothing is been filed yet in a state court could such a person bring it to clara torrie judgment in a federal district court for a declaration that the illinois procedures precluding a challenge once they're postponing it until after the sale and so strictly limiting the points that can be raised could could that case be brought because that's not rockefeller problem that's a drag i believe that case could be raised because you wouldn't be challenging a decision that's already been rendered which is exactly what's being done in this case and in that case those plaintiffs would most likely have standing to bring such a claim if they were in imminent risk of having these allegedly unconstitutional procedures applied against them but again that's not the case here what we have here are appellate court decisions that the plaintiffs are asking a federal district court to say are incorrect to basically overturn the primary holding and ask those courts to basically somehow send this case back to illinois state court with directions to reconsider and that is plainly something that the federal courts do not have the jurisdiction to do only the united states supreme court has the ability to do so plaintiffs in this case had that opportunity they could have filed a motion for reconsideration they could have pursued further appeal to the illinois supreme court those options were available those are the same options that the court found to be sufficient in the gilbert case that right they don't have to be  procedural mechanisms of right i mean obviously a motion for reconsideration just as a motion for leave to appeal are in the discretion of the court it's not like just throwing you notice of appeal and in taking an appeal yes you're correct your honor and all that's required for the doctrine of feldman to apply is a reasonable opportunity to have that issue addressed in state court and these are reasonable opportunities the court held as much in the gilbert case and i'd also like to add that in this case rule three seventeen was available to the plaintiffs they dispute this they tried to claim that the constitutional issue arose somehow separately in the mclusky case that was decided by the illinois supreme court but in fact the illinois supreme court did not touch on the issue of appellate rights in that case in fact in the mclusky case the illinois supreme court actually considered the arguments under the standard for a motion to vacate rather than the standard for time are you finished mixture well if there are no more questions on the record filming doctrine that we did present two additional bases to affirm the court's ruling in our response brief the first of which is the doctrine of friends honor and so the residue to cut if you would only really be addressed if you were to first believe that there was jurisdiction despite the record film doctrine which we obviously do not believe to be the case but even if the court were to go past the jurisdictional issue the issue of judicata is there it was presented it was one of the bases for the decision below and it was not addressed in the opening brief on appeal so they waived the argument they claimed in their reply brief  because there is some sort of overlapping issue with the ricker feldman doctrine that this somehow means they sufficiently raised it in their opening brief but that's plainly not the case if you look at their opening brief the word the term reza judicata only appears in a blot quote from the man's case my only issue with this is that there's a general rule that an apple leak cannot get more relief than what the district court gave without filing cross appeal and if you just got a jurisdictional dismissal in theory they could go back because it was an alternative basis in which the district court ruled the network favor below so again this would only be in the event that the court gets past the worker feldman doctrine issue which i don't believe there's any way you can possibly get around that but if you did there's a we've filed a joint brief we've worked here trying to send basically the same position as wells fargo they are in the same position with with one difference factually there was a petition for rehearing filed on  we are asking you to rule on the federal issue frankly i wish i could use your example in my brief of could we have filed the declaratory judgment i think that illustrates the point that we are asking for something different the issue of whether or not we have a procedural right to challenge had a procedure or right to challenge the appellate court rulings that both of my clients faced is crucial because if we're sitting here as we're sitting here you're sitting here is a court of law i may be able to go up and make all sorts of arguments but the fact is the court that listens to them says you don't have a right to make them and therefore you're denied to say that well we could make any argument we wanted in the court could in fact take that although true takes away from the very premise of what lawyers and judges do you know that's only partly true because i as i'm listening to you can think of all kinds of examples where courts say you're trying to make this argument but you can't do it you might say that because of the scope of the statute you might say that because there's been way for forfeiture at a different level seems to me those are at least two reasons and so courts do constrain the arguments that are properly before them you can't possibly say everybody has a right to make every argument everywhere i agree but you premises that even though i had no procedural means to raise this and the defense has incited and he would know i had no procedural means to raise if i could have thrown it up to them and because i could have thrown it up to them they could have said yes well they could have agreed with you that the statute unduly restricts the opportunity to raise points at the stage of sale that are really your