within a day but within six years of the final agency decision and i think what's significant here is that the teaching of the williamson county case which distinguishes uprightness from exhaustion on the court well knows th january of two thousand and ten correct the claim was not right at the takings claim was not right until the f c c issued its final decision i believe that date was january fifth two thousand and ten the claims commission case was filed january fourth two thousand thirteen how do you really reconcile that with martina and its statement about permissive administrative friend and let me be really clear to understand where i'm focusing on you asked for a debt restructuring you asked for a waiver of your client ted and these are permissive administrative remedies you are seeking as opposed to compulsory administrative remedies which must necessarily play out for exhaustion purposes for permissive administrative remedies which i think these clearly are why doesn't martinez government it seems to me that with with with respect to martinez in forty seven c f r one four two nine it talks about what a party permissive to choose to take that course it still puts before the agency the question of what to do with the request to put it another way judge moore yes but martinez says when you have a permissive creative remedy the plaintiff is not required to exhaust that and it says as a corollary of that rule i'm quoting the court has held that a plaintiff's implication of a permissive administrative remedy does not prevent the a cruel of the plaintiff's cause of action nor does it told the statute of limitations pending exhaustion of that administrative remedy i don't see why that's not directly employed in this case because what we're talking about today isn't rightness it's a cruel day well so i don't know why martinez doesn't read exactly clearly and completely perfectly  hundred eighty three context and at the litigant arguing that would be thrown out without relief because the rule in williamson and the rightness requirement is that you must a veil yourself of such process as you can in order to bring i mean just in this case it stretched out over so many years i think you knew that your licenses were taken they auctioned them off and gave them to someone else over your objections so i'm just really context to avoid gamesmanship we don't want we vote the takings clause in the just compensation requirement unless there's been a full review of what's been he's so the gamesmanship that that the williams and the virginia and the hotel decision eliminate i sitting on a claim and trying to perfect it in another form before there's a full record before that form so we don't think murkiness applies in a right this could case we think it applies in an exhaustion case implicit in the question you've asked me judge moore i gather is your disagreement with were various suits in this case has been in and out of one quarter after another dismal probably the last one the most were sent back but i think what happened is the the the auction was one in ninety six new regulations were promulgated except when it came to the time that your leisure sort we're reaction he didn't do anything well i don't think that's true in two thousand and seven there was pending before the telecommunications bureau the the motion for waiver and so  forth in two thousand and two the f c c said you can go ahead and operate on these licensees until there's a decision in two thousand and eight these were sold out from underneath and my client then went to a click declared the sense of protection assets in the bankruptcy court disagreed the d c circuit disagreed and so they waited for the two thousand and ten decision in two thousand and ten they then went to the choice of forum for a at the f c c directed them to only to have the f c c claim wait we can't waive sovereign immunity only congress by the time that issue worked its way through the appellate courts it's now two thousand and fourteen so there was a two year hiatus could that takings claim have been raised any time after two thousand and ten i believe it could of the question before this court was not whether it was raised or whether it was timely raised and under williamson county i think that they had until the stroke of midnight on the last day they filed the claim i don't see a decision from the circuit that you limits the ripeness requirement and indeed i don't think th circuit can do so under williamson county that's what precisely was at issue in your call it appeal to the commissioner of the wireless bureaus dual c had to say when the f c c auction the license out from beneath them they got a five million five point three i think it was million dollar asking price so there's ninety five million dollars at least that can be argued on a breach of contract claim which has nothing to do january if you read williamson williamson wins and it was a case in which i think the facts were that whether the claimant could even be permitted to use the land in such a way as to avoid their having been a you know penn central taking was still open it wasn't yes we know there's a penn central taking but there's still a remedy for taken from you given to somebody else if you cannot get along as you have a remedy for money then the taking his claim is not ok no it hasn't used those exact terms here but what it has said this is a claim is not right until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision and that's it for seventy three us when eighty six there is this circuit in two thousand and six in the northwest louisiana case said all the events which partly why i was asking about precisely what was pending before the f c c if what was pending was request for something that could not conceivably have been just compensation for the  away from the f c c with something partially can compensatory that's what i'm interested in wonder stood full compensation was actually not on speculative flee possible was part of the request in he said that the the why was bureau should have granted a waiver of the automatic cancellation and should have i think it was a second request to request you for general restructuring great that you did you couldn't have gotten restructuring licenses have been sold to somebody else among the steps the commission could have taken before its final decision that would have changed the posture going into it taking its form is whether it was going to forgive anything under the restructuring of waiver request whether it was going to offer refunds whether it was going to offer equivalent spectrums which would have had an economic or market value and could have been it's used as an offset against what the alpine had invested whether it was going to provide them with a voucher the economic before they couldn't give you your li ship it's a licenses i know the focus of the takings are the consequential damages that alpine incurred being led down the primrose path by the f c c for some ten years the ninety million dollars it put in but the damages accrue from for your loss of the life of in part yes but also from the expectation that we had we were free to use them and we had the right to seek their restoration yes these are not the actions that we under the licenses which resulted in litigation which this court referred to insult called in which other bidders were filing claims against the government in the court of federal claims that relates related to the reaction little confused about the point you want to draw from next wafer from what i thought i heard you say was the supreme court being next way saying they had even after the licenses have been reaction the option to somebody else the under the communications act of one nine hundred thirty four as they are amended from time to time to the extent that they're complaining about the automatic cancellation regulation that was changing the playing field they bargained for that extent that  i'd guess i was remembering that what they had what they saw from the wireless bureau and then were denied and were appealing was the refusal to waive those provisions back so if the commission had the authority to waive the automatic cancellation and pursuant to next wave takes all licenses back from whoever was using them in california or something and give them back to to alpine why was that not the same sort of thing that was said if you were in williamson namely the alleged taker might end up that somehow the very existence of the automatic cancellation rule is a violation of the terms of the security agreement which it clearly is not because that is the expressly agreed to have the automatic cancellation allowed and so to the extent that they automatically cancelled in two thousand and eight and they could have gone to bankruptcy court to preserve that they could have got they could have done something to challenge that claim or they could have brought it taking slam at that point if they could stick to the extent that estate which is the circuit held because they were far too late they waited forty years six years for six years to come to challenge to to try and challenge a thing that was already done w completely did not respond to twenty four where they have this laundry list of remedies the government still could have provided them in response to their two requests for waiver and that restructuring this wunderlist of remed which i guess they're saying could have been the just compensation for the taking and they were still on the table and could have been provided to them by the government in response to their requests even after the time when the licenses had been reaction and so since this hadn't been resolved yet this list on page twenty four does that mean liability hasn't been fixed such that the claim hasn't started to accrue the liability for the takings claim and we're assuming that there's a property interest that yes because you assumed in your brief so stop talking about that ok their liability i get this with these work permits of appeals under the f c c to the these requests have not been ruled upon yes because there's that because once the atlases are automatically cancelled they could have negotiated f c c had the authority but let me be clear you said earlier that held that they could have in two thousand and two i didn't read his opinion that way i read his opinion to say they claimed they were unaware of the cancellation of licenses in two thousand and two and so i didn't understand him to make a fact finding out whether they are aware or not because then he said alternatively at right but anyway it's actually my point which is did this civil liability get fixed or not that's what i'm trying to figure out i'm trying to reconcile williamson and i don't know what to do about it because you know that the rule doesn't make sense to me as you can tell from the questions i've been asking as applied to this case it doesn't make sense if i extract that rule from williamson and apply it to this case i'm struggling with the idea that this is what the supreme court wanted from william said but so i'm trying to find a way to make sense of this and you're kind of hoping you were going to say is there's a difference between fixing liability and assessing remedy that's kind of where i was hoping you were going to go i was hoping you were can say yes in response to that question and he can't you want to think about that i  for current purposes that there might have been having a court proceeding at an agency proceeding but i don't know how we wouldn't have made it i don't not sure we would have made it fifteen hundred objection the base and during the pending time when it was pending before the agency but somehow and to try to bring some sort of calm allegation with respect to the reaction because that those are two different issues and we are churning of the licenses and this motion for reconsideration now that  assumption that martinez is old martinez his comment was only about contract cases what that story and i do for you that martinez on that assumption  eighty nine and hotel versus virginia surface mining in one nine hundred eighty one and i saw no real discussion of soriano in those cases and i don't know if this is one of these anomalies in the law where it's serious soriano was decided in fifty seven sure i will take the view that that soriano is and is this really an exhaustion case and not a rightness case at all if it were otherwise i think the supreme court might have said so but again it's not clear to me and this case may be the case that clears that off as to the automatic cancellation there were issues judge reigne of fact the bankruptcy court for the circuit court in an unpublished decision in two thousand  did say the licenses were cancelled in two thousand and two well before the bankruptcy filing in two thousand and eight it's now unpublished decision i'm i think in the play the fact that we played in the claims court we talked about a communication from the f c c saying that the cancellation notification to the public at large was in error and that alpine could continue to use those that's one of those mix questions of law in fact that we think makes the case trial worthy two thousand and eight they were cancelled but they work or read optioned excuse me but they were really option within a year of having filed for relief that was not acted upon by the telecommunication bureau for some years thereafter i'm again why that's the case whether there is an economic consequence to that that would permit us money damages remains to be seen whatever the picture of your image i regret that we didn't have the time to talk about for it to be five and i know that rebuttal means keeping my comments within the comments that my adversary has made so i will i think that with respect to the takings claim occurred as it august thank you it was in two thousand and eight and if they can't none of the cancellation oh well there is a dispute effect about that but there is a date of august first two thousand and two yes or so what is your substantive for why that was a taking forget about compensation why was that taking it was going contravention to at least one reading at a contract that our alpine had signed which wound at the f c c to certain regulations when they were approached and asked to