in general alle scalia's pronouncements and i'm the city of columbia or perhaps vice versa are in fact dicta when they say that in fact bribing a public official is among the rights for tech did under the greatly respect i'm simply referring to them because it's for whatever reason easier for me to say than i am i don't know if you've been mr justice or justice scalia's regime of decision that held exactly to the contrary giving in mind that prior to his or her decision was never mentioned nor was any other decision which it held that bribery did not prove you did not was not conduct that was within the protections of either nor pennington or partner state action and that the tenser it said before call you know there is corrupt that there are corrupt practices which may prevent you from getting parker instructional system where the tenth circuit l albeit some years ago in the early eighty's that bribery of an official does not entitle one to first amendment immunity from any trust claims and held it quite specifically the tenth circuit then never mentions instructional systems again when it decides call so so one not should have mentioned it and said oh by the way you know whatever justice scalia said a nominee has completely negated all they didn't say that well there is such a thing as subsume one  well i think that's right dream court gets to say we're not talking about the supreme court i'm talking about i'm talking about that legislative court that use the  which is open lie just to follow its own rules of its own jurisprudential rules regarding panel opinions and the manner in which they may be then subsequently abrogated by that court itself  there whether these local governments could in effect control the the price of pharmaceuticals which within violate the discriminatory pricing provisions of robinson atman barker they said in california motor transport that bribing a public official violated the and i bribery provisions of section two c of robinson that that's what they say it so a digital says with daniel says that's what they say so yes we've got a nice general prescription against against conduct in restraint of trade that's the sherman act that's wonderful but we have a highly specific whatever else you want to say about roberts and patton in your hundreds could probably say plenty we have a highly specific provision that prohibits the communication of bribes in the connection with the sale of goods and commerce which according to the supreme court applies to government purchaser and according to the unity is going to attach whenever there is a showing that the governmental entity had the power to do what you asked it to do and it doesn't dental examiners looks behind looks behind does all of the things justice scalia did not want done for undoubtedly excellent federalism  and the counts five through eight state law i'm claims we think it's also carpet for the court to some rarely affirm the decision to dismiss the count three claim under section two c based on controlling supreme court in ten efforts to influence government officials from intact under the sherman act but then they go on to say but it fails under section two c of the robinson packman act and don't otherwise brief or argue anything relating to the sherman act at all though we do believe that the only thing that's for merits review really over and of the so issue number two so is there immunity from anti trust claims where the government  being applied across and i trust statutes in a in a broadway and there's nothing really special about the robinson patman i'm section two claims that would somehow trump the kind of first amendment considerations that what no i mean it seems to me that they they they culled from various newspaper accounts criticisms or question racing about six or seven different cities and in some of them probably what the complaint says is nothing other than they actually persuaded the officials responsible for decision making to do so source and probably doesn't to much more than that but it i thought in a few of them they have allegations about benefits personally provided to certain decision makers  and i guess that's the one that's coming to mind and then there's one about giving business mayors campaign manager or something like that you don't think that first of all do you think that that on its face crosses the line into section two rabbits and that i don't your honor when you when you search for the word bribery in the complaint basically it shows up in the headings the newspaper articles that are cited describe potential conflicts of interest and ethical types of violations not by theories or by the government officials involved in some of these different scenarios and so there really is no specific and identified bribe paid to any government official that have responsibility to you know grant things or these particular contracts for body cameras and it's just not there but in but in any event whether it's bribery or not the i think it's very clear that that it's not only conspiracy that there's no exception for in terms of more pennington munity but it also is any form of corruption or bribery and that that applies broadly arguments in the reply brief that actually the opening relating to pages one into the claim that there are these were circuit court decisions that tazer somehow failed to refute that apply commercial is a case that where there is language in there that says bribery of a public purchasing agent may constitute a violation of section two of the clayton act that is didn't involve actual bribery times at all and so under digitals own definition it's victor but i think the importance of that in me is that the court was well aware of the potential to see claims relating to bribery and they still and having acknowledge that and then a stretch where you're trying to rely on it as a sense in terms of something that it has abrogated a landmark supreme court decision in that case i'm clearly no dissent is binding authority but  this case a little examiner more in that time delegation is not at issue in this case and so like the district court said your a dissent is recognizing that the diminished perhaps application in a certain east involved bribery either it was a sham exception case but in that case yet said bribery of a public purchasing agent may constitute a violation of section two c of the clayton act and so the supreme court clearly aware of that language in a prior supreme court decision still held that there bribery was not an appropriate exception and that it did not know if i were pennington immunity or the application honour's i do wish to be brief my friend indicated and i think the court has addressed it and i don't wish to elaborate on its on its interaction with my friend but there are probably not probably there is one claim a state law claim arising out of california business and professional one seven four three which was the only claim that the district court assigned to ground that one so i'm in u s we've been donal for example but it simply provides that the communication of anything of value to someone in the context of the transaction involving the sale of goods in commerce when that value is given for something other than actual goods or services transmitted in exchange for the value that it is prohibited and we've cited for opinions from four u s court of appeals all of whom say that commercial in albuquerque and the story in l a and the story in other places mirror the language just to see which discusses which applies to certain kinds of things paid either to an agent of the others at the transaction or to the actual other side of the transaction you're sure i want to focus for one second on the payment to the actual other side of the transaction bribery well yes in other words and with your honor's saying is used is there evidence that the actual incorporated city of memphis incorporated nine hundred twenty three or whatever was actually given some better about that right mary and part of the problem with the that prior to see the part that says giving to the other side of the transaction as i see it the supreme court has indicated it is it's not that easy to separate a discount from whatever juicy is supposed to apply it it's a lot easier if you're paying to an agent but right very i do understand your point your honour's point and we don't have we do not assign in our complain any instance in which eight a municipality quad municipality has actually received something of value itself into its coffers all we have been able to identify in our allegations is the communication of value for other than services we say to agents and instrumentalities personnel of these various cities policeman purchasing agents mayors in the case of the city of memphis face as you know something to be said for it that maybe the first amendment doesn't protect actual bribery but if and so exactly what you're what you're using the term to apply to may not quit quite  lesser to the city and to the police you the city of albuquerque or to the campaign manager of the mayor of the city of memphis keep in mind that we believe the first amendment rights would not extend to my my my ability to write the clerk well i just like that my only point would be that maybe those questions are not that easy to answer and