removed in any case to administrative proceedings is it not that's one method yes one method so you're saying it should have skipped when you filed your original complaint attacking these attacking no notice the county should have skipped any administrative proceedings and moved directly to court and sought through a counter claim the removal of the signs yet and that is another way that the county can do it again and again i don't tell you that's and use your view is that that was required in some way that once you raised any question about the proceedings the county could no longer go through administrative let me let me try my question again because i'm having some difficulty with and let me tell you what as i recall happened in citizens one citizens when you asked that the county be enjoined from conducting in force in the proceedings and at the very end after the the ordinance had been amended the district court said no i'm not going to enjoin them they can go ahead with enforcement proceeding and you never appealed that judgment so how i don't understand how the county was precluded at the end of a case in which the judge said you may now go ahead with enforcement proceedings from going ahead with force proceedings  and your honour's characterization is a little bit inaccurate let me explain what the judge said at the end when we asked for a permanent injunction was that the issue that you're seeking permanent injunction or is not part the county is going to try to enforce that old ordinance against you you have presented no evidence that the county is trying to force all of ordinance against you and you never amended it was never meant that it's pleadings to challenge the new or so it's it's premature to consider this it's out of the court didn't you argue it didn't you argue in citizens one that because the county had amended its ordinance it could not apply the amended ordinance against you because the signs were up before the amended didn't you make that argument you did and the judge rejected it the read the ruling  movable without considering that section and how it interplays with what they're trying to force which is the general section which concerns use of property in a way that is different from the p t district used it's allowed god is right no i understand all that is two different question the question he asked you was whether or not you have any authority for the proposition that federal rule of civil procedure thirteen arguing would mean that any time challenge any crime city determination they could just go to federal court and seek to enjoin it and then the city or the county would be required to essentially bring their entire administrative apparatus into federal court and decide in this case is zoning issue but it wouldn't be limited to that through the device of a federal lawsuit i just i'm not aware of any case that woods would support that statutory article three authority of a federal court to try the administrative proceeding well this very petition isn't as travers it can be brought because it's authorized by statute and  what you brought to the reason you're in federal court is your body constitutional quite that constitutional great having been disposed of what's the authority of a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over state court administrative procedure it in terms of the case below here you know what you're saying is the federal court should have had they raised the counter claim i assume you're saying the federal courts should have gone on adjudicated the state court administrative proceeding and try to figure out where there's a federal court's authority to do that comes from thirty day can't give a federal court jurisdiction where would he get the jurisdiction to do that in the district because it would be but it would not be required to i think there's an airboat between a compulsory countered and the exercise that jurisdiction your honor and whether or not it would be an abuse that yours actions on that situation framed the proceedings in citizens one in citizens one were refused to issue a permanent injunction encourages the plaintiff said explicitly that they had no further challenge to the code and says well that which was amended during the course of the proceedings again when he says well it wasn't clear whether the county was going to try to enforce that against his clients  language here you know i have to see this language it says i think you're probably precluded too but that's not really the basis of the judgment is it the basis of the judgment is this is clearly barred by younger so i'm having trouble probably isn't covered by claim preclusion mr permit in his brief complains about the way the hearings were handled the hearing before the zoning board hearing before the board of supervisors it doesn't appear that i don't have any questions thank you thank you proceedings for among other reasons because they didn't raise they didn't litigate them in citizens one hundred and thirty they didn't didn't vote the district court in this court reject that argument implicitly and rd in that i think the court if there's any other furthe