supervising being supervised by the maryland court of appeals which had the same degree of authority over its decisions of the maryland commission act arbitrarily and capriciously i'm talking about horizon the maryland accord peals would have  approval so the only ground that the secure court could reject the rehabilitate her on is if the rehabilitate or abused its discretion the fact that it manifestly abuse as are the claims that are brought before us today the claim here is not simply whether it's arbitrary and capricious claim here as whether there are series of constitutional violations under a preponderance of the evidence and are not abus discretion senator and the supreme court's made clear in its later cases skinner lance that if a federal plaintive presents an independent claim it  not and that's what this is independent of an arbitrary capricious claim it is not an impediment to the exercise of federal jurisdiction the same or related question was earlier earlier aired between the parties that's what the court s know it only applies when you're asking for rejection of the district court's judgment and only judgment here is that the rehabilitator did not act arbitrarily and capriciously that's all this fear court decided to cutoff can you point me to any statement in the spirit court's decision where it said there's been no fifth amendment violation here either of due process or of taking school is the hypothetical spiric or the district of columbia takes all of your money and gives you nothing back in exchange and that they should order saying we don't think that you know we're just going to take the money and it's not manifestly unreasonable to do that by another hundred years of litigation on the various additional defenses you have but all the asking for is money they're not asking for one doing the settlement or they're not asking to get the assets back to se any of those things they want more money than they got and the district of columbia can can or cannot pay that depending on the order of a court of appeals but it doesn't overturn it just like i i i'm still stuck on the relationship between the spirit court and the real letter which you describe as sort of symbiotic which when i look at the d c code doesn't solve that way the only role of the spirit court is determine whether the road judge whether the settlement was fair and equitable that that's its role and that is exactly what this what this hearing or judge says he says the court ruled the court is determine under the circumstances of each case whether the settlement is fair the court's role in the rehabilitate up rehabilitation process is to supervise to rehabilitate  review the actions for abusive indiscretion and not to substitute the court's judgment that's i mean that's what we do every day when we review the decisions of the federal agencies we variety civil litigation the test would be a preponderance of the evidence the plaintiff would win if they succeeded on a more likely than not standard here or they can't win more likely than  rehabilitate or say one of your clients today said that they did not have st worker feldmann doesn't apply appeals decided that they didn't have standing they could not appeal the decision of the superior court then not have some party told them that if they decided that since the purpose of booker feldman is to require a force appeals to go through the state court system if the state court says you're not a party you don't have standing to appeal and the supreme court has said ricker feldman doesn't apply where you're not a party and the reason it doesn't apply is because you can't go through the state court system this seems like a very easy thing i mean maybe you think it hurts your case but  not a chance to show that we didn't so now we have to decide right so basically we would have to decide in order to resolve this we would have to decide whether they had standing for and i think we just have for the purpose of rigor for rigor feldman is to prevent a federal court other than the screen court from reviewing a decision of a state court because there is a federal statute which says those kinds of appeals are supposed to go through the supreme court now if they can't go through this spring court because you weren't a party worker feldman says expressly that exxon says expressly that you can and lance that you cannot use work or felt there because person wasn't able to appeal through the state court system because anything i've said wrong so far but all right so th really the job our job is to decide whether they're rehabilitated or was correct or incorrect when he told the court of appeals that he c h s i came out appeal because he lacks and i don't know what the right and the judge says you know you guys are really good lawyers i want you to participate in every possible way you don't have standing you're not you have no assets in this case but your good waters and i'd like you to participate in every way as if you were a party because that decision against them or they would they be by no i mean that standing in federal court either but the fact is just because you're treated as a party doesn't make you a party unless appeal which course anybody can vote that doesn't mean you get a right to appeal and the other party says frankly you don't have stand spirit judge whoever i believe that there has despite the allegation that due process violations are in process i don't i don't agree with that contention i believe the fact that you had a hearing on this in effect there was an order