looted by the very same state proceeding that columbia alleges fail to meet constitutional due process requirements colombians to make step for several reasons the answer that question is no and so we ask this fourth reverse the different courts entry o a state proceeding even if it's followed by a judicial review that does not give a fair opportunity for the petitioner to make constitutional arguments well and  court did not find that the petitioner and scruggs had an adequate opportunity to make their constitutional claim although i think the opinion reflected that the constitutional elements of acclaiming scroggins it was a racial discrimination it at in terms of what happened at each level in both and scruggs and in this case and in both cases at the administrative level what was going on it had nothing to do with the procedural constitutional issues that are being litigated here in columbia interpreted to mean that a creditor actually had to come to the bank and demand this money and not get it and that's when the bakers and solve it but it's undisputed that that's not what happened here what happened here is that the commissioner interpreted the statute for the first time in kansas history to mean that the commissioner could project insolvency into the future and determined that the bank was going to become insolvent in about two weeks or so and then declare the bank to be insolvent and seize it on that basis and so since columbia was never given that simply does not address at all the economy between what the statute says in terms of needing the creditors demand to be rejected to be insolvent versus how the law was applied in terms of projecting insolvency into some future date making certain assumptions the second point i'd like to make on that your honor is that in kansas claim preclusion excuse me the claim conclusion is an equitable doctrine the supreme court of kansas arguing for your honor i simply believe it's a matter that under these circumstances the due process claims were never given a fair hearing in that in state in state court for various reasons including the fact that many of the facts that comp process claim occurred during the course of the state proceeding this during given the fact that the state proceedings occurred in the somewhat haphazard fashion because the o s b ceased original position was that colombian was not entitled to any sort of hearing at  honor i simply say again that as an scroggins the issue was was passed before the district court and before the kansas court of appeals but the court found that it wasn't given a fair hearing what i would also  decided by the kansas court of appeals and that not a case that was that's not an issue that was right to be set aside for the tennis court of appeals because the state proceedings were still unfolding and it was yet to be seen the full range of process that columbia would by the border agency or other governmental entity but also includes the remedial process state courts would provide if asked so it's our position that under under that case as well as under the mckinney case that says a due process injury does well your honor will i already won over what happened with the fair notice quite how it was it really wasn't addressed by the court and i get it in terms of arguing that the entire procedures were not fair i don't believe that claim would have been ripe under this court's decision and pender it the banking turn or is that what we're fighting over here yes that's that's something that under this court's prior decision in the prior appeal that that's something that can still be returned to us and couldn't the state district court on the second go around it happen determine that it was the if it was if that procedural plane was ripe and if the fair notice provision had been considered that court would have been able to grant the same remedy but it would also have been the case in scroggins for example that had those courts actually considered the petitioners constitutional claims they could have given that petition of the relief he sought to but this court nonetheless held that that petitioner should have another shot at his procedural claims in the circuit there said well you could have placed that claim in state court and the pain relief therefore you're