he received three unwanted tamaki tax the last one which is the subject of this case because after he notified five star he didn't want to tax and after he applied stopped his complaint release i go in there he breaks my jaw i file a case they have a defense but i still have an injury so there's a huge distinction between those two thing it's like trying to  and that was a case for a call to a cell phone now the six circuits when we analyze this issue i looked at cases that had very few calls or texts and you know the i could end that call i don't have to listen to their sales pitch the text is automatically on my screen and they got their advertisement across and i saw it so i don't think they're more intrusive but that's  of standing but justice roberts in his dissent with through a standing analysis before he went in and gave the reasons on why he decided and he noted that all agree that mr gomes had a claim for the one t fact but they don't have carte blanche and one of those things you look at is whether it's closely related and and it goes on to state that in other words while common offers guidance is nice they got the limits of congress's power and i've been judged where it's opinion that it's obviously very closely and it's interesting to me because a it strikes me that one of the elements a moments of intrusion upon seclusion is the repeated or significant greed of the intrusion upon the seclusion right so that simply little a little bit of intrusion is not sufficient and that's none so the difference in kind that a system failure to satisfy that element of the toward is an expense it does your honor but i think that's where sausalito got hung up on as there sign that you need to satisfy not the harm of the common law but the elements and the other six circuits all hell that that's not the case if it is actual harm and effect five star actually agrees with us they and their brief they state you matt and that's why the physics president lines up perfectly with these other six circuits which are held that you don't need to show them or you don't need to prove the underlying to and it's worth noting that one of the bases that's also you know is that john articulates for his finding is that congress was not concerned with a version of privacy to cell phones that congress wasn't residential it covers faxes it covers pager services it covers business calls so be our position are they since the say that it's only limited to residential lines and therefore sa intrusions of privacy was a case to a cell phone it was not a residential line case so we think that it's also you know it was simply on misapply that basis now or why well as far as the context of article three standing we have three we sent there is two texts mr kreiner said stop he called them they resolve the dispute and he did it again so to the extent that one tax weighs more than five star new is a great idea why this time i can text they they had a dispute about it he said stop and said to him anyway so even if more than one was required independent reason for article three injury effect and that follows this court's decision of planned parenthood which recognizes a violation of a subset of right as independent basis the arkle three injury and also files follows the court inhales realty found the same obviously different statues but the law is the same so for that independent reason the mr cratered states it injury or fact so for the reasons  two separate reasons one was the disgust for the last fifteen minutes the single text messages that appellant received does not rise to the level of a concrete injury that supports article three standing that was the basis for a motion to and you know for whatever reason the other ticks resulted in a so which a stance a bully makes one think there was some reason to believe that those text messages  before i mean get out just as a lay person that just saved a little disingenious to me you hurt me what a bunch it takes you settle you sent me another one but now you all say well i don't have any injury but you forget about that you settle with me because you got i did i was injured i mean dead just seems as a layperson that a daughter could three judds i mean that just seems disingenuous to me to  injury you know is you need a whole bunch o in this case there were a bunch of they were settle in so he has this one he says of enough settlement didn't do what someone assumed you and so he sues you and he says one c council says once enough so you know i mean does none of that matter is force injury i mean he has someone his case on the merits but to say you didn't have standing takes in person says enough i'm going to court and then the person says well you can do to it because you know i have been through so many i'm just exercising article three free thinking you don't have to respond to it this court it is long as it's fully briefed in the record as a matter of procedure the cases that we that we've found on say that this court can affirm the judgment on any basis even if the court and i'm sure i'm asking the question wrong so let me try to do it a little bit differently it's obviously true that a twelve b six decision can be affirmed on any basis even one that the district court didn't reach because the relief that you decided there's a lot in your brief that is about how the one text doesn't impose in the interval injuries doesn't mean that it's not you know imposing costs the same which part of this breaks down article three vests federal jurisdiction over cases or controversies of which there is a set universe presumably that existed in seventy nine dollars and then congress can pick which from that set  causes of action like they did arguably here and my question is is this set universe of cases or controversies that existed at seven hundred and eighty nine g s the plaintiffs have to be able to show some casual injury some you know it if my neighbor without invitation and without my permission and in direct contravention of a big sign that says no trespassing takes a step onto my lawn that's actionable a common law regardless of whether there's damage done to my grass or my sprinkler system or whatever right if someone were to salt me in the street yell some profanity or some fighting words those would be actionable even if they cause me n looking for something completely unrelated over the weekend and i came across this case from joseph story when he was writing certain eating thirty eight and i'm curious as to your reaction as to what he says i am not able to understand how it can correctly be said in a legal sense that an action will not lie even in a case of a wrong or violation of a right unless it is followed by some perceptible damage while can be established as a matter of fact on the contrary from my earliest reading as joseph story i have considered it laid upon the very elements of the common law that whenever there is a wrong there is a remove the to redress it and that every injury imports damage in the nature of it and this is my my key question i'm curious as to your reaction to it actual perceptible damage is not indispensable as the foundation of an action a law tolerate no farther inquiry than whether there has been a violation of a right if so the party injured is entitled to maintain its action which makes some like at least in eight hundred and thirty eight when he's right in circuit and mean that the the rule that was clearly established in his mind anyway was that you don't really need an identifiable damage a perceptible quantifiable thing and if that's true then i don't see why congress couldn't just say ok here's an imperceptible damage we're going to make it actionable here's our statu distinction between repeated and harassing which is obviously actionable and clearly a case or controversy and congress can create a federal possible action to afford and force it and something that's not repeated in harassing you can't count one versus two versus five that's quantitive at what the big reason is it's going to differ between each judge you're going to have one judge is going to think well once good enough counting another one i think five good enough and you have no uniformity in the federal courts you know forget nationwide you know even in this district or the circuit you will have uniformity because the courts are going to differ constitution this case of controversy