however my client has suffered because it is subjected to basically unfair competition because here are two corporate entities that are utilizing fraudulent legal team to government they got for free to compete with my car who had to go out and buy that piece of equipment and that gives them an unfair competitive advantage which makes it more difficult for my clients when it's in to get jobs that you don't have an legislative history for the statute because the civil remedy provision for the rico statute is almost verbatim from the clayton antitrust act and so everybody that's looked at this and said ok what's the nature of the remedy particularity requirements that pertains to the fraud and we that for the specific documents that were the fault of the false statements were made the nature of the false statement and why it was false that was played with particularity i think he's arguing and basically what the judge has what on us in terms of the burden was that we not only have to plead the frog with particulary but we have to plead every single item of damages and at the time when our amended complaint was filed and this was back in two thousand and two this right i had only been put into operation within a few months when the first complaint first of many a complaint was filed and maybe six months from the time the second man was complaint was filed we didn't have that much and i think we went beyond that and what we said was that unless they got had gotten this bigger drug because they already have they have one you know this is the allegation which is a completely improper allegation that get too far but they have to show a direct injury or order from the alleged progeny statements made by ted cruz's corporation and their harmful business or property interests and if you are fifty three there the why district court painstakingly went through those documents there isn't any fraud flag with the necessary particularity in this place there's no time there's no specific reference to who was involved what sort of activists would be happening there just isn't enough and this is especially true when you consider some of the elements of recovering this case your honor one of the things that he is always trying to do is there in my mind creating some dangerous precedent in that where there's only two competitors in the marketplace that there must be some automatic injury or pattern is no it's not that they lied once they lied to get the dr in the first place saying that they were going to operate it after they got it and this is all based on our complaint after they got it they lied and we submit are continuing to lie at the present time in order to try and get away first so that they can use it in hawaii but the third thing it's an unrelated thing it's not addressed in the recent ninth circuit decision huber if they lie to conceal the nature of the program and after they got it they continued to lie to try and cover that up they lied to my client when we called and asked them what was going on they lied to the government they lied to congress trying to get  we end it was it was the law that intangible rights were not cognisable as you know of wire fraud statutes since been amended intangible rights are cognizable the government had a right to compliance with its contract x when they donated the dot dry dock to the extent that they were lying to the void the consequences of that to deprive the government of contract rights that it had to get the dry dock back after the fact that's an ongoing pattern waiver and deals boykins of the consequences if there are breach of contract that those are all different false statements but beyond that the mail and wire fraud statutes do not require that the actuals wire and mail communications be