the definition of oregon menace is if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury they've committed oregon medicine whereas the about the morality the motive or the corrupt mind and the government sites to state the anderson that this actually distinguishes between socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior but that doesn't vicious motive is required for a conviction under the oregon medicine statute next number consideration is the least couple conduct they can lead to a conviction under the statute does not fit the oregon menace involves an angry unarmed teenager telling her mother that she thought about stabbing him her in her sleep hours later for taking her own away this poses neither the imminence of serious physical injury  the reprehensible conduct contrary to the accepted rules of morality and this is oregon medicine so the least couple conduct is not a crime involving moral turpitude so oregon menacing should not be considered a crime involving moral t stop time rule for purposes of  and it did so by examining the the fact that this was an intentional crime not a general sounds and that they reprehensible conduct here involves n news somehow being able to be classified as either simple assault or anything like that but instead because the definition of this offense under the oregon statute involves words or contact the person te star yes but at this point your honor this is a statutory interpretations question which means that we're dealing with whether an awd the elements defense as identif board's reasoning is reasonable that's when we stop evaluation there that's that's that's it so at this point although petitioner it raises an argument that you never raise below being that he's saying well you know  oregon magazine is a crime involving moral turpitude but we are asking this course this court to reverse those decisions and the court is able to look at these legal issues don't know  you're correct that chevron deference is required when the reasoning is sound is what counsel pointed out when the reasoning is sound but because they're presented earlier that both elements  continue to be hopelessly irredeemably which just puts anything that's unrelated to fraud on and on hard to pin down definitions of cia and so the idea behind are him again the oregon courts said that they intent required to cause fear of the significant very serious physical injury is socially unacceptable that's as far as they went for a crime it's an intense frightened it's not an intense injury so again this is only frighten someone not actually injure them the notice appeared to not have the time and date on it and therefore did not trigger the stop time rule had to be age not rule on it because of the medicine argument but assuming and hoping that this court signs at oregon that you're giving a bet that the court is giving deference to a regulation issued by the department of justice and the regulation itself redefines a notice to appear to be a document much broader than  required by statute the statute has absolute limits on how the government can define a notice to appear which includes the date and time of the st hearing the elation issued by the department of justice lists all the requirements of the statute except the date and time is a specific workaround to give the department of justice jurisdiction over the case and keep up support from overturn any finding of jurisdiction only because of the regulations it's an editor around around about messenger despite congress but didn't didn't care indeed be inducted independent analysis of the regulations that the