which precludes the lower court jurisdiction over matters seeking review of state court judgments in applying the rover feldman doctrine matters that directly seek to set aside a state court judgment ar no court shall have jurisdiction over any claim or action for payment from or any action seeking a determination of rights with respect to the assets of any depository institution for which the corporation has been appointed a receiver including assets of the corporation which it may require as receiver or nd any claim relating to any act or a mission of such institution e court held that the action jurisdictional bar applies to three distinct claims or actions the st of which are all claims seeking payment from the assets of the affected institution nd all suit seeking satisfaction from those assets and last all actions for the determination of rights these of those assets claims is also defined in volver law dictionary as a demand for satisfaction for from or any action seeking a determination of rights with respect to the assets of seaway bank for which the areas that are going to interrupt you for one moment please your a monday yes  for the simple reason that the case of interpret subsection and even subsection two has nothing to do with the volatility of a judgement they all have to do with the declaration action or a monetary the distinction that we have to be careful to draw here this is not a claim on a note or saying we don't hold seven hundred and forty thousand dollars or we're cleaning six million dollars in trust for example like the the miller f d i c case corporation that acts as a receiver because again we're concerned with the order itself we're not concerned with the action of the bank or the receiver we're concerned with the entry of it were that was entered by the lower of an order it's that simple the administrative process can say well ok we're going to make a determination with regard to this bank account this mortgage this loan this note it can never vacate a void quick question yes rather you are seeking to have the order of foreclosure vacated but aren't you also seeking to be made whole if you get the border vacated so the the important notion  the case law interpret unfortunate one in illinois is it doesn't it doesn't contemplate what might happen later on down the road the sole purpose of a one thousand four hundred and one is essentially to determine is a judgment valid or not that is limit of the scope in people versus vincent the illinois supreme court noted that there are only five possible outcomes to strike the fourteen and one petition to grant or deny the forty one dollars petition after or to grant or deny the petition effort adventuring hearing to determine the specifics if the order of forfeiture is vacated aren't you going to ask the court then to be made whole the properties been sold so you're not going to get the property back in all likelihood so the interesting part is that goes into the unknown rightness of trying to assert a claim or five go through the administrative claims process because we don't know what the court was going to do if the court granted for example let's say the court is not a claim because they are not seeking monetary relief now putting aside the notion of following up on your question judge same diva about whether the endgame here really is restitution after all briefs filed below by j and even in this court make clear that their view is that under illinois law as night follows day and eve a k to judgment leads to a mandatory requirement by a judge to order restitution but putting that aside as we set forth in our brief the meaning of claim under section eight hundred and twenty one dollars d thirteen d is not limited to monetary relief and we know that the couple of ways st of all looking at the plain language subsection d thirteen d has two components two categories of claims for which jurisdiction is stripped from all courts it talks about any claim or action for payment resident subsection to i the subsection we focus on in our brief it talks about any claim there is no for payment call fire and the course of appeals have recognized this difference we decided to the wilner case from the th circuit we cited to the westberg case from the d c circuit both of those cases specifically hold that that the claims process under subsection two covers claims for non monetary relief because that's that's what the statute says is not limited in the nd prong to claims for monetary rel f and in those cases for example the courts found that the f d a c could declare declaratory or enter a declaratory relief in the claims process counsel mentions today although it wasn't discussed below in the briefs well what can the administrative claims prices do there's no cases cited as to what the administrative claims process can do with a particular claim and as the wilner court found for someone intentionally bypass the fiery a claims process and then quickly and then come in later and say well we couldn't have gotten any good relief out of it anyway that's just sanctioning strategic pleading and bypassing the client ross s and willner the court found that any arguments about what the claims process could provided that waived but even if those arguments weren't waived had this two days fourteen no one petition been presented to the f d i c again i don't have the claimant from me i wouldn't be making the decision but there are a couple of things at least i can think of that the f t c could've done for example again as judge city mentioned the issue of getting the property back the foreclosed property that was sold by the bank after it for close down the noted issue here the f d i c could could have allowed for example a an unsecured claim in the amount of the value of the property the f d i c also with respect to with respect to the judgment that was entered the council talked about the fact that well only a court can only a court can vacated judgment oh the f d i c for example could potentially in certain cases pull back that judgment from the party that it sold it to and then agree not to enforce that judgment that's what the court talked about  they said the power to enforce a note is also the power to decline to enforce a no similarly here the f b i c word to pull back the judgment from the rd party a transfer to  could then agree not to enforce that judgment so it sounds like you are agreeing that the f t c could not agree to fake it the judicial order but there may be other remedies that the f t c could agree to that would get janet at the same if if this had gone through the claims process prior to litigation being filed which is the whole point of the fire it claims process it would have been a matter were other steps could have been taken for example another way to deal with this without getting a court order is satisfaction with the court that would have ended the issue of the judgement yes with respect to with respect to the relief that is being sought in janet's claim if the judgment were if the judgment were to be and again every case is c to be able to pull back that judgment then there would be no there would be no need to make any finding as to whether a lack of personal jurisdiction was  series could have brought this argument regarding defected service in the f d i c administrative process and would that lawsuit in district court and they would have the right for the district court to take a fresh look at that with no some on the scale as to the f b i she's determination it would be a a day no vote look at the claim that had been filed by jna so there's no appellate process but they can preserve their claim and pursue their claim in court said they they could they could move to district court and then like any other lawsuit if they run says five with the determination they could they could then file an appeal to this court in my brief time remaining i would like to address this issue which i learned about today at nine hundred and fifteen this morning about about the issue of the record feldman doctrine this is a dismissal for lack of subject marriage or structure or there is another ground under which the district court did not have subject marriage jurisdiction does not need to be reached by this court because when congress has withdrawn subject marriage or stiction from all courts state or federal for failure to satisfy an exhausted by real claims process there is no court to remain in this this case if if this claims process was required to be exhausted and it wasn't no court can hear this case so remain would be a futile act and it would be nonsensical i see that my time is up to the court as any other question i'd like to address counsel's last point the court ever had personal jurisdiction over the accounts or not that can never be had from what counsel is saying well there are certain things that the f b i see could have worked towards working towards what  recommending could have resulted in that income forgiveness for example tax consequences that the only avenue would have been to not vacate the order is void and what counsel attempts to do is say well