go to to succeed under all of those but that's not the case here we have this one specific statute as it would seem with the government for example and the action case took the position that materiality doesn't require if they if they look at the whole of it with anything that's going to be completely serious but you can go to jail for a really long time and get a huge fine for saying something that inaccurate even if it has no bearing on anything if it's question you say they want to be accurate they want everybody likes accuracy but we don't we don't send people to jail for being inaccurate we send it to jail for stuff that we consider to be really bad so does group that has to be tethered to the actual offense conda it was it was stated in the information that the loss was specifically stated as to he pleaded guilty to the crimes charged in the information information was a specific statement that in excess of two million dollars loss was suffered by his firm me how much more tethered any other person in connection with the futures contract knows congress knows how to say the words they did have been separate subsections that's that's what's interesting about this case but if you want to treat six as if it's all forget or ask you this how is the government can come in in some cases and say false statements that does not require materiality when it suits you you can say in a prosecution a state we don't have to prove to reality to send you to jail but when you come in here and it's important in order to make the government's position work to say materiality it matters all false statement absolutely absolutely has to be and say materiality doesn't matter but in the immigration context you can come and say it's got to be material a couple points are first of all we are talking about the criminal context here and that's what is so bizarre about this case we're talking about the standards law itself you can say in one case materiality has to be and in another case you can say materiality these are well we can't speak for why our colleagues in chicago more than twenty five years ago took a position that seems inconsistent with the position taken by the transaction the materiality of all three provisions is inherent in the transaction itself it's inherent i mean i'll repeat i'm not making points if you're a little might sound like i'm not trying to be i'm trying to pressure both of you on your position certain asking questions and one of the things her purse you on is why do you think the words false statement are suddenly different in this statute as opposed to in wells and net materiality element which the government loved in those days but now in this you can say oh my gosh it's material for the solicitor general pointed out in the same brief cited in petitioners are private but a court has implied a requirement of materiality reg none was appearing on the face you know one circumstance and that is where the common law definition of straw it which requires the material misrepresentation has been incorporated into the statute and that is what and that is regulation designed to protect the integrity of the markets and the investors involved through each store do we start with the words the statute absolutely on or do we follow the pattern of the supreme court in wells and another but again there supreme court says don't carry a common law meaning of material right that's right all right so you're full argument hinges on congress really meant to get it  prospects or keeping false reports where the other two provisions a much broader presumably can covering for whatever cheating on the friday means in that context and the problem this is often even from  i thought pretty thoughtful percent but it came up short why why why does it have better traction now for you because the context of the statue down and this is not a criminal statute under eighteen u s c right least ambiguity here would you concede that where the words materiality don't materialize don't appear in the statute and where the structure of the statute itself separates fraud and c away from the false statements subsection that did thank you thank you and absolutely i would also say just on another aspect or session or a construction the in connection language does not equate to the two materiality otherwise we don't we don't look at this stuff in a vacuum we look at it in connection with securities but he's got a point that you ought to address but i think his point here is using this front if we want because we look here at the specific sub part is to try to understand what congress is getting at by reading things in isolation or by reading i mean congress i think you have to read the specific language of the statute to start with that that's the absolute starting point