and i would like to start by saying that this is a very i think this is a very unique case it's a very interesting case it's a case that in the nineteenth fifty fifth circuit decision and  in several things it found that the government representatives from the or the local culture represented to my class protocell certain title that if they followed the service of this property to the government that the ordinary rules the issue of the statute of limitations that involves a lot of these claims and then we've got the tone of questions based on the whole no case if we were to hypothetically agree with the government's position going to place position on the statute of limitations questions what is left other other claims that fall within the statute of limitations but were dismissed based on to whoa now yes  what i was going to say is that we filed suit in two thousand and eleven that's not affected by section fifteen hundred so if you found that the accrual that for the permanent taking was when we said it is in march of two thousand and seven you know alternative analysis somewhere in between where you are and where the government is and were going we are a court is needed you you may not you don't like the result justice and honor i mean he obviously cared for a great deal about these cases and he certainly understood the factual circumstances that make this case a difficult one i'm sure he did and we do still disagree with with  pounce did not make a constitutional argument saying that if section fifteen hundred prevent someone from having a fifth in the taking that that it has to give way the statute has to give way to the constitution it didn't takings argument is the sheer macaque indignation case i mean it's it seems three pretty clear to me in the court said we cannot review the decision of the district court in the in the fifth circuit you you don't have to do that in fact that's not what we're asking you to do it all we don't want you to we're not saying it doesn't matter to us at this point whether the fifth circuit was right or whether they were wrong all we want you to do is look at it like they say and stop the look at it look at it look at the status of things before to see if there was an established property rights look at the effect of that of that decision to see if that step with the property right truly changed specifically did private property become public property as a result of that decision that's the only inquiry that we think you have to make would have to do in this case i think you just have to look at what i mean i'm so sorry to keep repeating myself we just look at what the status of the property was before look at what it was after and i just remember that judge when i was on the smith case is that there is no as if you were judicial taking us nowhere in the breach and no where in the opinion in that case the whole question of whether or not the current federal claims were authorized to review another court was being used by the government in that case as a ground to say there was court and you think of a case where the statute of limitations or cruel day was laid up against this question about title i couldn't find a case where the precise argument that petros making here we could use the help thank you thank you made a decision in boise cascade no they wouldn't have to do that therefore you can proceed that's what i was going to say i think that's the way to do it if you lose on that first question who we're sorry we disagree with you we think requirements i would have to look at the fester then you have to sit down no i think always it controls what was he certainly that's what we're asking you to do we're asking you to do exactly that look at them the right because that really the reason why we look at the merits of that case was because we decided that to do so did not require us to look into or looking behind a district court action and something true here if you had known then that's why when you say that that's i mean that's the big question in the case if you're assuming that the court better claims can and proceed here without having to make a judgment about what they do whether they agree or disagree with it in a circuit that's your point boise didn't didn't say the injunction was wrong voice you just said the injunction kept us from beyond that so we're saying look at the effect of it it doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong the only thing that matters is did it private property become public property as a result of that decision