in exchange for non-interest-bearing trust accounts; and 9. a comprehensive program will result in increased administrative and record-keeping burdens. Several of these concerns have previously been addressed by this Court. In In re Interest on Trust Accounts, 402 So.2d at 395, we rejected a fifth amendment “taking” challenge to the voluntary program, reasoning that “no client is compelled to part with ‘property’ by reason of a state directive, since the program creates income where there had been none before, and the income thus created would never benefit the client under any set of circumstances.” We do not believe that the mandatory, as opposed to voluntary, nature of an IOTA program changes this analysis. See Carroll v. State Bar, 166 Cal.App.3d 1193, 213 Cal.Rptr. 305 (Ct.App.) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied sub nom. Chapman v. State Bar,
holding that execution of the mentally retarded is prohibited under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law holding that californias mandatory iota program does not involve a taking of property without just compensation as prohibited by the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding in the context of section 341 fifth that the mere existence of federal agediscrimination laws apparently including the adea does not create a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution in the form of job entitlements for government employees over a certain age