and gauge work i would be about to engaged in active acts or practices constituting a violation because if if we're looking at the sufficiency of pleaded as to that standard and whether that standard has been the whole case by you know again i think the argument i mean not only could you that would be typical right i mean when i say the criminal case drives the bus i mean that that's the standard operating procedure right one of the things that's troubling to me is is it seems baked into your argument that gentiles are wrongdoer and you never really prove that right i mean he was indicted i mean you had every sort of it smells like that you had every opportunity he was indicted right but if there was in never happened it was never proven so what why should we tar him as a wrongdoer when when you never prove i'm asking if you're telling us he committed them you investigated him you got convictions in plea agreements from a couple of his alleged coconspirators but you did nothing to to it supported an imminent or certain or near certain violation and it was a bout to occur then surely you have a basis for the proceeding in court but instead the amended complaint here like your original complaint is devoted almost exclusively to recounting what happened in two thousand and seven in two thousand and eight and then arguing on the basis of propensity alone that there is there's now a reasonable likelihood that's that seems fantastical i mean the only reason to debar someone is because they're around endure and you have a fear that they will continue to do wrong i just need to protect the public  either way whether it's whether it would support criminal charges or civil charges the predicate for your action for jump to really is that there were past violations of the securities lives you have to establish that as a basis even to show the likelihood right  this is so this is the inverse of but i asked him but asked if there was liability and the issue was remedy and the district court ignored the remedy and this court reversed saying look you can't just say the person's in a different occupation so that's the end of the matter here you haven't even proven a civil liability and you want to prove civil liability over something that happened well over five years ago i so you could you could have you could sit in wait you could have filed your complaint under your theory of this case you could have filed what about no penalty and equity and if you want to believe this is traditionally an equitable remedy i am there's enough in the input no three of cook ash and certainly at oral argument to suggest that the court's concern there was that discouragement was not authorized as an equitable remedy isn't coquet limited to that specific concerns as to discouragement leaving intact the no penalty that equity will knot of hypnotic it wasn't presented as a quick question in case and there's a long standing tradition and yeah and no penalties in equity if injunctions are equitable relief why doesn't that as a matter of law foreclose affirming here complaint run you have to you have to either plead that there was a current violation or that there was that about to be in violation and it's it's that standard but you haven't pressed sufficien lawn i mean is it clear that those factors apply in every case because i'm conceiving of a potential scenario in the future where let's assume that rather than just some  use your phrase let's assume that mr genteel form a new corporation and that corporation had the purpose of pursuing a penny stock operation and let's assume that there were other behaviors that were sort of consistent with a pump and dump scheme wouldn't the commission be within its rights to running the court and try to prevent him from getting that operation off the ground know i know and that's why in my hypothetical i assume the commission would want to put before the court what it believes happened many years ago in order to establish precisely that finding well i  notice pleading is all that's required and how how far from judge heard a man's hypothetical it really is is the complaint here because that the allegations seem to be  well that's good those kinds of consequences that that's that's always the case right and there's going to be those collateral consequences and even if the remedy is when it's appropriate  why why isn't your argument susceptible instead of the as you suggest to conflating whether an injunction is is appropriate with the question of the nature of the injunction all they want to do is get pass forward with with a complaint a legitimate basis for injunction then aren't we back to what is the standard for imminence what does it mean to be about to engage in a violation of the securities laws as as currently pleaded if it's truly imminent that that seems like a higher standard than what our cases have suggested to date was so it's really about when the claim of cruise and you know the instagram post isn't enough for a queen to accrue but that was that's why i asked not hypothetical i couldn't vision about to engage in sick if with the likelihood is not a reasonable likelihood that you're going to be committing violation is fine within five years that is it's not too damp if it's brought within five years might just become genitive if it's after five every i was going to say it's not categorical right i mean how about this what if what if the the prayer for relief in the commission's complaint was we would like the court to enjoin mr genteel from ever engaging in securities business with john smith punitive or not  know it's it's it's because it's because john smith in my hypothetical is sort of the the public enemy number one in the penny stock business as far as the commission is concerned but that goes to what needs to be proved i mean i'm i don't know i just i think under my hypothetical i try to give you a hypothetical that labor is labelled not your client is a wrongdoer but but smith is the wrong do everything but are you just now asking us to disapprove of what the supreme court road in coke that word soley was was in the opinion works and you know what's that my word that is the second part of the question is well this seems to boil down to you know if the standard in the terms of your statutory authorization that isn't gauged in or about to engage filing into the securities laws