of the defendant would you have had the injuries anyway you seem to assure in your complaint if i read it correctly that the property was in deterioration already before before the asserted scheme that you say fact that while of course this court is allowed to look at any issue that was before the lower courts i don't think in this particular case that should you know that should apply and that's because the police in this case aren't involved in this case anymore  have not chose to participate on appeal there they're participating because the mystery of romney well in this when it comes to looking at this issue particular i think is because the media in this case are serving that they were not going to large the issues before the court there were certain are that's why the court held in the lower court is that we did not properly allege preventing detection however the way they the what lower court dismissed it was based on a standard of he was called material in affirmative conduct  certain individuals illegal aliens in certain properties white citizens and certain properties hispanics in certain properties or awful black citizens in certain properties but they were careful to put the illegal aliens into the property into certain properties and the reason was because he resented scheme that easier actually what we discussed that just sort of like this was the reason why a police believe this made it more difficult first off they believe that by harboring them in certain buildings they could let them they could let those buildings be run yes if they put u s citizens in those buildings u s citizens would complain and government authorities would be called illegal aliens would not be called the other reason that they believed that it would prevent attention was because they wanted to specifically separate illegal with another somebody was involved in the area knew about the scheme apparently there in new jersey apparently i don't know i'm much about it where they were able to actually do background checks as far as like exam and stuff like that is your case you know you're asserting that this should have been should have been done well i'm actually not asserting it should be done i'm saying they specifically did not do it for legal issues but they did it for us citizens and worst of the they didn't do they did not do the commercial background screenings which you know when martin saw what is the racial background who was a span i think could not speak english the leasing agent was required to ask whether the person had documents and if they did not they determine that person was a little and would put them in a certain building would allow them to come back with false documents would apartment since this is necessarily mean that immigration is looking for them it doesn't know it doesn't and i mean is it not perfectly legitimate for some illegal aliens assuming they're illegal aliens to live in apartment that's absolutely or at a strip so would why would you need to do commercial type investigations on that group and not one of the groups this goes back to again why this is harboring it goes back to the fact that these individual landlords these these are pelleas believed what they were doing was illegal in the complaint we al to the leasing agents don't go talking about this so we don't get in trouble he also you know i always said that if if anybody found out what we're doing we'd go to jail so again they knew what they were doing and that's the reason they set up is again if this was just a normal or tenet relationship where the layla was not asking about immigration status was not discriminatory it discriminatorily steering individuals into certain properties setting up a scheme which the police themselves believed would best prevent his allegations to plead a violation of the i and a but ultimately this comes down to an attempt to criminalize conduct that no court has held is illegal and that's renting to undocumented immigrants  essentially three categories of allegations of action let's keep quiet about it right which it which is is the court noted in his it's a road method that's that said to the employees not to the immigrants and that's the important distinction i think but ree categories the something more that's alleged here are the targeting of undocumented immigrants tenants the issues and the allegations about five discriminatory background checks or accepting certain documents that may have been false and then that steering out nations that the first two of those categories did not go to harboring at all they just are not relevant to whether the conduct substantially facilitated presence in the country or whether prevented government detection and that they may be relevant i think they are relevant to the landlord's knowledge of renting to undocumented there are grounds that has never been contested by the de so i really think that the court can put those sets of allegations aside if because of the land there's nothing that prevents a landlord from knowingly renting to an undocumented immigrant an undocumented immigrant comes in and says i am here all scheme to let the property run down get more and more people in there the fact that you wouldn't a background check because you're not expecting a credit report in some sense that helps you because it explains it in a very innocent w ballmer went from a built living in a building that was mostly white and african american majority white african american to a majority hispanic doesn't say it was a majority of undocumented immigrants just as a majority of  even if we assume for the sake of argument that all of the new people that came in the building were undocumented immigrants there's no allegation here that it was exclusively undocumented immigrants in the building there's no allegation that there was no other groups in the building or that it was there were other people there who would have called it just was already evidence or anything in the record to suggest that any single undocumented immigrant was ever apprehended or charge illegal aliens i'm sorry are mean is going to lead the concentration in the building to buildings comprised of illegal aliens is not alleged with any specificity it's alleged that a majority of mr boehmer is building  the theory on which is a claim depends this is this is how he's getting to the predict prevention of detection wrong is by saying that there is a almost exclusive segregation here that's preventing fights between races which tend in preventing potential fights between races which is preventing a perpetual call to the police which is preventing a potential call to ice which is preventing the potential raid on the building that's that's the link in one or the other that these buildings can be allowed to go into disrepair without an undocumented immigrant blowing the whistle on it well that also depends on that and having a building full exclusively of undocumented immigrants and we obviously know that documents or coaching an undocumented immigrant how to lie to us it's it comes in the context of employment relationships where there's an obligation to collect documentation and to do background checks and there's nothing to that effect here you go again to a group of undocumented immigrants allegedly living in plain sight and grouped somewhat together corn into the complaint we're not sure how but the connection between that and any actual effect on a government investigation is extremely in time you waited and not anywhere remotely close to what's been found to be harboring in other cases  this court has upheld the prevention of detection prong in four cases in the last three years it's clearly embedded in this court's jurisprudence and i would say that in the lasagna case your honor judgment he mentioned that what's required is an act of obstruction and here we don't have anything and with that remotely comes close or an act of obstruction your orders raise the issue of rico standing i think that's an equally  strong basis on which the court can affirm it was raised fully before the district court of this quarter didn't reach it because it reached a harboring issue but it certainly was briefed and raised for the district court and what mr vollmer is trying to do is to turn the landlord tenant dispute about the conditions of his apartment into a federal rico claim this is truly expanding the statute i think beyond where it goes well there's no standing because he has only a  complaint that the buildings as a whole and mr building bombers building in particular was already in disrepair prior to the scheme in fact it was part of the motivating factor for the scheme that there were the properties were well i  how they that's how they interpret it just just helping that first off the case law on this requires much more than that again comes in the immigration kind of what do we do with that terminology just hoping that somebody remaining in the country illegally would be a context is different than this because the undocumented immigrant doesn't have a right to be employed in the country and whereas there's no such i don't know how about renting an apartment to somebody that i know he's undocumented alien and i say to be quiet don't tell anybody that this person does not have proper documented that that's not sufficient because the commercial relation the commercial tam landlord tenant relationship could be replicated by that undocumented immigrant with anybody this is actually it's similar to ken county i'm sorry to say always look i mean you centrally got a situation where you can you can replicate the same assistance  the alien can just go to another landlord and get a apartment there so there's no that's not truly helping it's not encouraging or inducing that that's different from and from providing a job where there's no ability to walk into an employer and situation and something something dramatic is going to something will change if your counsel if you're a lawyer counseling landlords you're going to now counsel them hey you've got criminal liability criminal exposure and potential trouble damages if you don't take some landlord tenant relationship or the landlord knowingly rented to illegal aliens it would be a problem but the issue in this case is that he did so much more you know he steered them to try to protection he targeted them as a market asked about immigration status when every single one anybody came in that they thought immigrants this goes to the standard what you know what constitutes obstruction ok and and what then the elizondo case the court said it has to reduce the likelihood of discovery if you look at other cases for instance the seventh circuit it looked at in the united states for mostly hispanic that was i think it was paragraph seventy one seventy or seventy one of them like what they get through this is that the police themselves had a system that they believed they were for they were discovering it leaves they believe that people who came in who spanish and who believed did not speak english but after the aspen gratian documents that they determine those people were in the country lawfully so what that is they serve them in a certain building now mr ballmer noticed that individuals coming into his building fit that profile go if you look at the commercial cleaning services versus service systems which is the second circuit to seventy one f up three d three seventy four page three eighty three this is the exact situation that we have here except it involves the hiring