yes sir may please the court this court should reverse the decision of the lower court under one of two theories and that is that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and the court of federal claims lack jurisdiction to entertain in a very is taking can't takings claim because congress provided that district courts should have the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate what happens when the government honor the initial decision was that there was no standing however that was reversed by the ninth circuit and re mandate and it went through the entire adjudicative process and there was a determination that in a very was entitled to have the return of the rest of the bond that was posted by turbo conversions so in fact  here is first and foremost right that there's no jurisdiction over that's a correction only and that argument would have had as much juice in a mirror source would it not in there i'm just curious are wondering why the government didn't pursue it why if of the rights under the controlled substances act were adjudicated in the district or and for that reason this court should affirm the decision should reverse the decision below based the controlled substances act and for that reason the court of federal claims has no jurisdiction that's correct there there's an entire set of procedures that were in fact followed in the district court  even if they hadn't been followed for some reason because failing in a very fatal to appear that the scheme of the statutory scheme of procedures provides that all of these matters when a property is seized and disposed pursuant to the government's law enforcement act that should be adjudicated in the district court and not subsequently in the court of federal the aims of so it's not necessary in your view whether or not i mean in this case you got it all it seems because they pursued it in the district court they went up three times but let's assume he had never filed in the district court and let's assume by the time we goes to the c f c the statute of limitations had run so there's really no practical ability for him to do this is your view that given that there's a statutory scheme that gives him this right that in and of itself will close this jurisdiction that's correct that is our position and and the court a federal claims his health so in a number of other cases involving the controlled substances act i mean in this case this is an unusual case in which in fact in a very didn't go through the procedures and did have it stay in court but now it claims that it somehow was i'm not sure what its basis of its argument however over let me finish with one more aspect of it moreover when they went back to the district court they were told that you only have jurisdiction up to the ball on the raise which was one point three million dollars so the value of the t l a was not litigated before the district court because it was not present your honor that that is there is a missing point that the court opportunity the bachelor turbo conversions was given to enter into a step collated substitute rest bond agreement with the united states it declined to pursue that a certain point so the government inter arguments a claim that the court lacked or stiction explained that as their turbo conversions itself didn't have jurisdiction it claims that the bond was too low not that it was too too high not that it was too low another word it claimed that the bond was higher than than the technology license agreement was the value of that was to the united states and it could have litigated the issue of whether or not the bond was and was represented the fair market value of the licensing agreement itself but it didn't litigate that issue it actually claimed that the as i said that the bond was too high and in addition to that the bond agreement provided that in a various rights were forever relinquished if the court approved the bond in a very raise that argument with the district court and the district court said no that's not what's happening here in fact in a very you have the right to litigate this issue in the wisconsin district court and that that was the ruling of the district court in a very did not appeal that decision of the t l a to basil or turbo conversions it could have said to the district court let's have at the end of these proceedings let's have the t l a returns in a fair but it didn't ask for that and it didn't appeal any of the decision of the opportunity regardless of the standing issue it had the opportunity to litigate this issue it was litigated and it could have appealed that decision but it didn't do that instead it waited and then it's tried to seek additional funds matters not the court of federal claims or to federal claims must states hands and for that reason the scorch should reverse the decision below in addition we argue in the alternative along the lines power acquisition of the property and it's not taken for public use it was the venice fee michigan decision which said that where property is not taken for public use then there is no right to receive recovery and so that bennett's decision was cited in both the acadia decisions at decision and the amerisource decision by the  the exercise of police power can be taken to search for it and in theory can yes your honor and there was one case that held that it was but you know there have been no chases subsequent to that  in a particular instance there may be a reason for this court to or for the court of federal claims to to look at the issue and determine whether or not you know there is a taking in that case but that is not the case  here as as we as i previously argued there were all kinds of opportunities for in a very to see the return of the t l a to have received fair market value of the value of that order but in a very did object to the race pont it opposed it but the district court overruled those those objections the fact that you know fair did not appeal has no legal significance in this case because it would only matter if it operated as a waiver of some sort but it clearly did not operate as a waiver in if there is a right to argue that it was an innocent owner of the property because the forfeiture proceedings continued and in a fair did exactly that you argued that it was an  point what are the property returned it had been substituted for the respond and frankly at that point the government had assumed the risk that you know there might actually prevail as it did in the forfeiture proceedings and prove it was innocent know the response the second time around not at all you're on the race pond was negotiated in secret between the government and the bassler entities in a fair which was attempting to opposed its own bond and the joint appendix of pages seventy six and eighty six reflect that you know they're actually only offered to post a bond on the exact same terms bassler but the government simply decided not to deal with in a fair they preferred they had this deal worked out with the ba set to respond was not set at the value of the t l a that the response was set at the amount of money that the government claimed was was forcible it had this theory that you know there had received one point three seven five million dollars from air colombia and had allegedly applied that amount of money toward the t l a so the government said this is the amount of money which we think is for for people to us so that's going to be the bond amount there was never an effort made at the had me was designed to secure the government's interest it was not an arm's length transaction with a willing seller what about the wisconsin litigation didn't that didn't your kind compensate in that proceeding with the value of his interest in the t prior to the settlement you know bassler as well as in a fair in theory could have had it taken to claim but that the settlement agreement said we will resolve this litigation in a very you get one hundred percent of the right to pursue the takings claim and  particularly punctuated by the fact that in this case your client actually pursued that scheme but that a congress as congress telling him how and what to do when when something like this happens how can override that like a judge first there's an enormous difference e judgment that said that your property was foreseeable in this case we are not challenging the district court's judgment because the question is why the court said that and you disagree with the government's characterization that the court said that because congress intent is because there were there were cases and this is one in which innocent owners were not fully compensated for the value of that rubber stamp whereas in that standard coming from you don't get to apply for rita when you say that it isn't a comprehensive and coherent your property is forfeit of all rita says you can't come into the court of federal claims and say we need we should be compensated nonetheless so that comprehensives if you want to call the competence of scheme we are not challenging the outcome of that scheme  in terms of the judgment about whether the property was forfeit will interfere prevailed on its innocent owner defense which in an ordinary case would entitle it to the return of its property but in this case what makes this case very unusual in fact unique is that the government had already transferred ownership irrevocably of the of the t l a to a third party  reversed was taken care of and once or know that the ninth circuit said that this isn't in ram proceeding and that the district court was without jurisdiction to award the value of the race except that all they could do was was give us the race spot standing to act correct initially for the court initially the district court said oh your property is gone you have no standing here and the government convinced him that the ninth circuit in its first opinion said we are mystified you know how can you say they ha they have no standing when you took their property and he transferred it to a third party so the case goes back to the the district court the district court agrees with us that we are in an innocent owner and the district court actually then set out to the up to value of the t l a because it knew that the respond was not was never an effort to replicate the value of the t l a but when you were up before the ninth circuit the first time around the ninth circuit could've been go back to the district court and get your property back there they could have said that they did they gave you standing to sue on the property at that point in time given the force that you request the just the circuit to return the property to the district court that you still had an interest in the property otherwise the issue would be moot well it was it was premature it would have been premature at that point to make a request for the property because even if there had not yet proven that it was an innocent owner that occurred later in the proceedings after after the rain and the issue on appeal the first time around was whether interfere had standing at all to object to to object to that the transfer of its property into it and to continue to defend on the ground that it was an innocent owner and i circuit said yes you do have standing go back and in a fair then prevailed in the district court proved it wasn't innocent o that the response was never meant to reflect the fair market value of the technology license agreement it was on this this leads to the question i wanted ask you that is it in the proceedings with regard to the race f asset in the same condition as it once at the time of the seizure and so it seemed to me that you raise the very concerned with that but we did raise the concern and but and so my question is why didn't you oh and appeal the had burst ruling with respect to that race what were you in any way for clothes from appealing i've not not not that i'm aware of i think that was deaf or its purpose and its only purpose was to secure the amount of money that the government felt was was forfeit of all so it was not ever intended to protect interferes interests or  substitute to provide a remedy for the taking just stepping back a bit when the government says you know i'm going to take your property a property owner is entitle to just compensation what whether or not you tr stop the taking and when the government takes your property you get just compensation even if you don't oppose their effort in this case you know they're did oppose it oppose the race bonded objected to it it simply lost that proceeding so that  t was substituted for the race aren't but you know there didn't commit any way for at that point it continued to defend in the forfeiture case on the ground that it was an innocent owner and it continued to argue that the t l a did that saying in this case the respond was never intended to be a valuation of the t l a and that's why this case is fundamentally different from one in which a bond was set at the at the value of the property this would be a different case if that's what if that was that the purpose and intent of the race pond but but the record is clear in this case at the t l a that the response was only meant to secure the government's interest it was never intended to reflect the fair market value of the t l a the government took a valuable piece of property it gave it to a third party and then proceeded to lose the forfeiture proceeding in a fair prove that it was an innocent owner of that property and so were nearly the property would come back to it but it did so the profits property was taking and so then the only question is is just compensation what is the what is the fair value of that of that property it was not the value of the respond because hunch should we integrate the settlement than  suit was filed before the t l a was seeds that was a suit based on unrelated breaches of of contract institution or a duty so it was not a separate suit over the t l a which is exactly why that why the government has not so so argued on appeal in this case that there was there were intercompany transfers between the basket entities that interviewer claimed were in violation of its rights as a fiduciary and that was the basis for the wisconsin your mother suing their ownership right was separate in fact i would say the wisconsin league ation is reflective of the animosity between the basque learnin of there that gave rise to the seizure of the t l a so it was soon after the wisconsin litigation was filed that bassler approached the government and said why don't you sees this this t l a you know here's a theory under which it's forfeit a ball and then you can transfer it to us and we'll use it so that's that's what happened but that happened after the events that gave rise to the wisconsin litigation drawings the particular equipment that was used is need to manufacture that so in effect it was the the heart of the relationship was at issue in the wisconsin matter and moreover as the court has already observed there was a settlement to the wisconsin litigations and that involved the payment by bessler turbo conversions of two point seven five million dollars and the allowance for in a very to prosecute recovery of the bond in their a zone a district court so initially when the arizona district court said i'm not deciding the ownership of the rights under the t l a in effect the court was was correct because those also got litigated in the air in that was constant matter and the parties settle the dispute by having passer turbo conversions pay in of their and also given a very the right to seek the return of the substitute the bond that was posted by best of your vote and versions another point that i'd like to address is that regardless of whether the value of the bond in the arizona district court was the government's interest in fact under the content controlled substances act it provides that the bond posted should be the fair market value of the property that is being returned to the owner so in a very had the right to pursue had making sure that the bond market value of the t l a and it didn't pursue that in fact it as i mentioned earlier it argued that the bond was too high in a very in addition had an opportunity to pursue the return of the t l a under twenty eight u s c section twenty four sixty five which gives the rights of the parties the rights in the arizona district court proceedings to seek the return of the property following a forfeiture proceeding so as we pointed out in the first part of our argument the controlled substances act provided  rights and opportunities that it could have wanted and and it did not pursue all of those by virtue of not seeking an appeal of the arizona district court's decision or pursuing the right to have the return of the t l a under the section twenty four sixty five so this court should reverse the decision below because of the reda decision and its relationship and in addition to the alice t r t of how it flies in this particular case thank you thank you