in this case, mr. diden alleged that his local village government violated his fifth amendment rights when it took his property to build a national chain drugstore. at a meeting with the government agency, another developer, mr. diden was told that he could give the developer $800,000 or a 50% interest in his pharmacy project, and if mr. diden did not accept either condition, the government would simply take his property. two days after mr. diden refused to comply with these demands, the government began proceeding to take his land. the district court denied mr. diden his day in court. your panel confirmed that decision in a five-paragraph opinion. why did you deny mr. diden his day in court? how can these facts in essence allegations of extortion at least not warrant the opportunity to call witnesses to see if mr. diden was telling an accurate story? >> the did encase presented a narrow issue that the court below -- [yelling] >> officer, remove that man immediately. [yelling] >> we will stand in order. we w

mr. diden's property, it was one piece of property in a larger development project. that larger development project had been based on the village's conclusion from its very lengthy hearings in accordance with new york law that the area was blighted and that the area needed economic development. so to that issue came the issue before the court in the sense of had mr. didden knowing that he could be injured by the state's finding of public use and the state's decision to let a private developer develop this land, did he bring his lawsuit in a timely manner? the court below and our court ruled on that basis that he hadn't. he had reason to know about injury that could come to him. >> is ins mr. didden's claim was based on conduct of the developer, how could he ever file a successful claim under the standard that you just mentioned? >> mr. didden alleged in his complaint that the private developer had extorted him. extortion under the law is defined as an unlawful demand for money. on this one piece of property, within a larger development that the private developer was