on the food security act there is one court of appeals decision that's the eighth circuit case they say after a thorough analysis that struck compliance is what unless they follow all steps in section sixty eight or even one even and what the eighth circuit did was they said we're not going with substantial compliance we're going with strict compliance therefore we think congress intended they actually hear this kansas opinion which we've dissected them in the briefs and can talk about them in more detail if desired or they had their case that was the kansas case that actually was a out so that you have with our call central firings or the rest filings of these notices of security interest jesus and illinois do not have the central filing everything here has to be gone by direct notice trial just noticed cases seem to be current mishmash some say binding some say controlling some say nearly persuasive even the illinois supreme court which may pull back a little bit they use the words when you have a federal statute you want to have a uniform application you want to follow the federal courts and it seems like the state alarm my view is that at least at this point the rule is that to be able to prevail by graft and that's what they say that they say you don't the way the structure of this is set up is section d of section thirty sixty thirty one you're basically saying statute the federal statute is that a person who buys farm products takes subject to a lien by the bank even if they don't know about the lease so the bank is getting an advantage over a buyer who doesn't have complete information in the statutes that is in the thing is going to be able to enforce it language out of the park from central firearms or central firearms could be done as long as they weren't seriously misleading asked what it in those words for substantial compliance and the idea was it certainly is not required by this particular corps by your honour's to follow the ruling of the circuit factually the case in the eighth circuit is a little different from the case that we have here here versus there is that in this particular case the notice the notice that was sent to the elevator includes additional language which indicate describing farm products were it is not limited to those on the above property that there is substantial compliance because that's the only thing that's what this simply unknown is the elevator was certainly on notice in the two consecutive years of the liens there and as for indicated by their behavior in listing it's for the buyer here when they've made behavior they back we ask that they show that they had notice of it from an equity standpoint did try to get out from under their responsibilities for lack of a better way to say it due to the fact  ruling in the in in the consideration the judge had all made at the trial court level on this matter he even went above and beyond that in my opinion by trying to find a copy of the actual notice down and was looking for was whether or not you dish in a language of the described farm products wherever located and it's not limited to those on the block property that was included in the fourth district case or not and ultimately was able to find that it was architectural and real respect later on i think that a central filing state doesn't provide as much protection because you have questions as to whether or not the buyers on specific notice and as in here we have a specific notice  a circuit court as many indicated earlier should just be held to be persuasive and not binding upon your honour's in this particular matter the while while i mean because it dealt with allows for the fact that and i think it is common knowledge that there is a good deal of farmers who do farming multiple counts and i think that that is part of the reasoning ok opposing counsel i ask this question what's the well i think i think it's sufficient to tell the buyer that not only are we talking about any products in this specific county which would have been allowed had one filled in but there's the potential for other there's a potential for there to be other securities last there and that further investigation should should be done before famous of the question i guess what i'm getting is questions need to be requiring every i dotted every t crossed went to it which allows a buyer in this case the elevator the opportunity to escape their own negligence passions by avoiding or not paying real briefly it sounds like there may be an argument that you can work the form says to list the property and the county words blank and then you can just check the box it's a property w