belabor the issues raised there there's just a couple things i wanted to point out or discuss but the facts aren't really relevant to this case because the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction subject ma from cerebral palsy since birth and he's the managing director of haskett lynn development company which ran a religious camp for underprivileged use youth and the property at issue they bought the property originally for about one hundred thousand dollars at a sheriff's sale and it was a tax exempt property they continue to use it in in a tax exempt manner through their religious scam mr haskett is an ordain minister and it was there was no dispute i don't believe that there was it was a religious can't the problem became a few years down the road they got a tax bill showing that the property had been event had been reevaluated for a million dollars close to a million dollars they had no notice of the revaluation and they wait for them to deal with their issues having to do with state tax to deal in the state court proceedings which there were proceedings and there was an opportunity for an appeal as opposed to bringing federal action which suffers from the tax injunction act problem here i don't believe that the texan gentian act applies in this case because there was mechanism that allows the state court processes to be effective for for them in this situation requires that they first timely file a motion for remission or tax exemption  reevaluation and they although they allege and this is a factual dispute that they had twice previously filed in timely filed those applications the defendants claimed that they had lost them they never really deny that they had been file but they said they lost a you disagree with that and so you appealed the adverse determination but your honor no the thought they respected it's our position that they couldn't appeal the appeal would it would not have been effective because the condition precedent to the appeal into a state court action is that they would have filed the timely application and it's the defendants who are precluding them from filing the from meeting that first prong certainly the state court listen carefully to your argument they're not going to shut their eyes and ears to well crafted arguments such as yours but i believe that judge gold in the state court case that was not appealed it was a foreclosure case but he said he refused to consider well the discriminant the discrimination aspects so then you say that state judge was wrong and you peel to the state court of appeals or state court can say i don't want to hear it discrimination portions state courts can refuse to hear federal wellston matters but i think that with a i've had quite a few state courts your honor that say they don't want to hear discrimination when they are are factual issues that preclude the state processes in this case there was there are state procedures and i knowledge be the first to acknowledge that there are procedures that could have been filed in an ordinary kid followed in an ordinary case but in this particular case they couldn't be followed because the defendants when the allow it and how would you how would you get to the appellate process when the facts would be the same that the trial court found that there was no they weren't going to hear the  discrimination issue or the trial court found that they didn't timely file the application for remission and their only thing would be their only defense of that would be the defendants had it and wouldn't process it so  i think that they're precluded it's like a catch twenty two i think that that the failure to be able to submit that they have filed that application in the third instance on their own adequate because they would have lost the appeal i mean that can't be right sorry don't know you're really saying is that you didn't have to appeal because you would have lost the appeal because there were findings of fact regarding the whether they whether they made this these applications allegedly they were lost my recollection is they did have any proof in the room we're looking at actually file but that's right that was an argument you could have there was a remedy for that by an appellate process but you're saying that it's not adequate because you wouldn't provide also that the only stay process that's out of good is the one which you would always win but the way that you are a put your honor doesn't sound right but but in fact the underlying theory of what you're saying is right if if something is futile then i don't think it's required if an administrative procedure is futile that it shouldn't be required in this case the state they can e excepted claim and now it's that they were applications file but they didn't have them and so they were on time so the third application when they were smart enough to finally keep a copy was declared to be untimely and i think the significance of that is that the tax injunction act doesn't apply in this case because the the county has repeatedly told i believe it's undisputed that they've said submit your application pay the ninety eight thousand dollars that we're claiming that you owe now and then you'll get it back so that's not there but they wouldn't put it in writing so i don't think that this is a tax i think this is this is a fear or a fine you didn't time we're saying you weren't timely we're going to give it to you anyway but you have to pay it first and then we'll give it back to you and i don't think that that's an appropriate result and i don't think that it's a just result and because of that i don't think that the that your question your honor is as far fetched as it seems the way that it's ridiculous as it seems the way that you're posing it i don't think it's a question of you can't appeal because you know you're going to lose this is a question of futility because of the action discriminatory actions of the defendants and in that same line even the evaluation and then at no point would say how the they came to this million dollar evaluation or what formula they used or how they came to this tax result and certainly a taxpayer would have a right to know how they came to an amount how the government would come to an amount of what they owe and they were never permitted to do that and i think that the facts when you take them together establish that the cia should not apply in this case and that at least the appellate should have had a right to be heard thank you thank you may please the court i'm craig nathan and i represent athens county government the apple leads in this matter the appellants are asking this court to do something that it cannot and here here's why appellant land development company is in ohio for profit l l c and it is the subject of an ohio real estate tax foreclosure action in that proceeding a judgment was entered  against in the amount of ninety eight thousand dollars in change by the athens county common pleas court on october twelfth of two thousand and eleven now the land development company represented by counsel chose not to appeal this judgment instead it filed the instant action in federal court as the district court noted below despite appellants claims of discrimination it is precisely  state court tax foreclosure proceeding that the appellants are challenging could could the appellant's raise their discrimination claim in the state court proceedings yes your honor i've used to be in state court and i myself i handle such a case and presided over such a case tried to a jury but they've refused to take a permit is it a matter of discretion no your honor i believe that  they lack subject matter jurisdiction they would have to hear and that would be a basis for challenging the foreclosure proceeding based on the failure to pay the ninety eight thousand dollars of taxes that's correct or wrong and this court has held that the tax injunction act trumps the situation where there is a constitutional challenge but the question that i was trying to get at is is there a mechanism for them to raise their discrimination claim in the proceedings that were going on in the state court and you're saying the answer is yes yes   assumes that you are going to lose and i think that the whole idea of giving the state courts the opportunity to address that very issue is to allow the courts their due and just because a trial court rules in one particular way does not mean that the three member court of appeals will rule on the same direction i think that the  that's the underpinnings of comedy the underpinnings of the tax injunction act is to allow the state court system the opportunity to address these cases justice ginsburg in this case from ohio in two thousand and ten the eleven case that we cited to it regarding the comedy argument said that the state courts are better situated  address questions state law tax questions and that's really what underpins the tax injunction isn't the issue whether they have an adequate state remedy not whether considering the merits of the case they would likely win or lose on the merits but whether the remedy is a yes or are much harder because that i think confusing the two i mean she's not arguing that the state doesn't give a remedy she's saying well if we go there we're probably going to lose as the merits but we don't do that analysis do we know your honor and and this court has also held that even if a an appellate choose or a plaintiff chooses not to exercise their remedies or waves the remedies doesn't go forward with the remedies that that still satisfies the plain speedy and efficient remedy requirement of the tax injunction handicap placard program of the state of tennessee was at issue and you looked at it was a very close question the fact that in part that program for the handicapped placards and it fees that were collector the assessment that was collected was more like a fee because it funded the program itself and that's one of the tests in the american landfill case does the  tax or assessment collected does it fund a specific program or is it a general tax and i think in this case is very different and distinguishable from that case which was a close case this is not a close case because i cite you to revise code all revised code section three twenty one point twenty four and that talks about how the real estate tax which is collected how it's dispersed and it's clearly  directed towards general expenditures that affect the entire population as opposed to a specific group like in the handicap placard  plaintiff slash appellants enjoyed in this not only could they have continued their appeal of the foreclosure action they could have originally pursued a challenge of the real estate valuation which they did not through the revision process they could also have appealed to the tax commissioner which is a state and city with regard to a tax exemption and they are a for profit corporation as their original exemption issue had arisen and so i would say to the court in conclusion that unless the appellant's can convince you a effort to collect a tax or that these three separate avenues of appeal that they enjoyed under ohio law were not plain speedy and efficient they cannot prevail and this court has held as i mentioned before that even where a plant that were plaintiff is allowed a plane and speedy efficient remedy when that planet has allowed that remedy to to elapsed even under those circumstances the remedy still satisfies the tax injunction act so i would respectfully urge the score to affirm the trial court's decision dismissing this case for a lack of subject matter drives to action pursuant to the tops injunction act or under principles to reach your state remedy as a prerequisite you have to pay the taxes that were assessed against you without due process and without any notice if you don't pay those i'm sorry i would just buy the way through the federal system works with and i apologize i'm not i'm not sure but this is with regarding real property and so i think it even if that is the way that it's done in the tax court in this particular instance when the basis for the valuation and the tax in the first place is discriminatory and without notice and without due process then i don't think that the that the property owner would be should be required to first pay that fine which is really a fine or a fee and then be assured that we're going to approve your application when you do file it and we'll give you your money back so that's not money that's going into the state coffers those are money that's money or the government coffers that's fine or a fee that's being told we're being told you're going to get back but you can't you can't proceed on your state remedies unless you pay it and i think that that that's improper and i think that that  makes the tax proper they shouldn't do it but what is it to violate the constitution to violate a law what what what what's the legal basis of i think it does your honor yes it's a proper but why well i don't think that it was there was no just dispute in the state court if i recall correctly and i wasn't count we weren't counsel there so we weren't a part of that case and that wasn't filed as a foreclosure that was filed as a the county stepped in when one of the somebody that was owed money filed an action in the the county stepped in and the judgment that was granted in that case was only for the purpose of that case and it didn't address these other issues and i property but you never feel that terminations your honor that was appealed and that was the decision it was appealed through the tax commission i believe and and all through so through the board of revision both of whom said that their statutorily not fine and and to pursue state remedies would be futile and there was no due process thank you very much thank you both for the argument the case will be submitted with the court called the next case please