only issue on the sapir will is whether the factual allegations in the st amended complaint support the legal managements of the claims and i suggest they do there are  article thirteen of the california constitution provides that that anything that is happen didn't happen when article thirteen dollars was an act that it didn't happen since that and it continues to this day that  a power revenue transfer and that's a violation of article article thirteen c as amended by proposition twenty six which makes very clear that that this is not something that involved here and arizona utility that was not a public utility but a for profit mutela say that was actually so that it's rates were  it's rates were decided or considered by the arizona commission with respect to california the  commerce well we're sure your you read the johnson act then as saying that you can have an one thousand nine hundred and eighty three cause of action that clearly would be barred if asserted alone and that case would be but the result is completely different if you tag on as count as nd cause of action a hobbs claim is that how you read the johnson act there yes but i also would say that no once again apply for different reasons for the fact that there were other planes which suppose we just disagree with you on all the other claims and we just have the one thousand nine hundred and eighty three claim left wouldn't you at that point b invoking jurisdiction that's based solely on repugnance to the constitution and then wouldn't that condition be satisfied well you don't have to have there's four conditions it's not just one and the order does not interfere with interesting because well i say that it does because in this particular case to taking money from people that they don't there's a wide spend an interstate congress so you don't you have a situation where the monies are being spent nothing to stop them from doing that and that's part of why it's agree just deliberate indifference to planes as protected property interest by their failure to have a proper to t the so it doesn't exist but that's rights the rights given to the plaintiff by article thirteen as a matter of a proposition that's the crux of the catt specifically one of the elements in the rico is that there would be personal gain for the officials and i think your argument here that their personal gain comes through their salary well they're not salaries they're the commissioners and they're getting all kinds of things like travel expenses well it's sorts of things that's was put to the commissioners but that comes out of the general fund it's not directly related to the transfer of that those funds it's related to the fact that they're getting money  judged homes questioned i don't know whether that you know fear with your question or you got a question yes or no i mean the wookie case suggested that if they don't get a personal benefit and they're just being aggressive in filling the government jail that that doesn't fit extortion and that would affect your hobbs and and rico but you said you had rico predicate other than extortion which would get around that problem and i'm well i think the results would be viable the extortion is the fact that people don't know that if you stop paying these excess fees you stop didn't pay your bill your electric would be shut off and given that the monies to the city government fans i think that the argument in wilkie is a look he also only applies to federal government the federal government as opposed to the thing that really says it applies i mean they have the the it's clear that you can't do what they're doing which is taking excess rates and using them for their own benefit transferring them to the city ruled on the hob saqlain did not reject a yes right so the merits were were reached so i mean we have something to review in and they challenge that ruling out of here properly filed an appeal well pretty much eliminates fraud as a claim against a government entity they spend a lot of time in the reply talking about how will he was only addressing federal employees and what the facts in that case did involve a federal employee that's true the will he analysis was in no way been one of the class action settled the case was resolved one of the class one of the the members that opted out appeal without appeal is nearly over so the case wasn't actually done it's about to be  suggested the pay compensation that normally comes with that position there's nothing to suggest that the money that was supposedly improperly taken in raids in any way translated to profits by it individuals involved they were acting in their official capacity on behalf of the city of los llegation of improper rates that are allegedly improper taxes in that case there was a periodic transfer from the power company to the city general fund and the supreme court said that was perfectly acceptable and other than that though the fact that there was a transfer didn't mean the words was excessive and in that case the supreme court found that the rates were perfectly legal and the trends were perfectly legal so the fact that there are transfers doesn't mean that the race for illegal as it is of course this panel doesn't have to get into the details of exactly between the individuals and the city that the all in play is the rates that were said they were proposed there were public hearings chance of a common public notice there was an ordinance passed there was an opportunity to challenge georgia ordinances by state wri set if they weren't then there's a remedy for that as the law in that case the supreme court found that they were properly set but in any case there's not a fundamental right fundamental due process right out of the federal constitution that's been violated  with respect to the with respect to the city defendants and potentially with respect to the commissioners includes online payments for joint concealment they didn't tell anybody what they were doing they just did it and spin that would include fraud they they did this they the pair that is not provides there's not charge in which does not exceed the reasonable cost of the local government conferring the benefit or granting the privilege and then as to it says century the same thing so it's when they start to church excess fees that are then every year for a one billion dollars to three hundred million dollars transfer to the city that that becomes illegal it's becomes unconstitutional and it's contemplated as a deprivation of a property interest right under the th amendment and also deprivation of the right to vote or to have a