multitude prosecutions without regard to whether the defendant personally cut the property directed to a third party closely allied to them or directed it to a party with whom they had no relationship or an antagonistic relationship in our view that was the law under which this case was by threat causes the victim to transfer the property not to the person making the threat but to a third party that is still of taining even if there's no benefit to the person who arises only in connection with in light of the instructions first provision that only arise in connection with what is at least presented to us as if it's an intangible property right  a ten thousand dollars check to the union the instruction of a crime or not well the instruction would i think if there was no personal benefit coming back to the defendants it would not be a crime under a core argument that they're making turns on it being wages and benefits rag as opposed to a tangible thing cash i guess what i'm trying to figure out is for purposes of this appeal is that an issue before us or do you want to only us because one issue becomes a toehold for the other so food and now only say let's assume this is just like cash because properties and before so it's rooms property and then we say no personal benefit government is not appealing the second ruling the government is appealing only the first the legal point that in circumstances where a transfer to a third party occurs assuming all else as is set forth in the indictment is accepted sufficient that is that is incorrect as a matter es you know we didn't benefits case do you need a direct benefit shown the way this case is just coming to us that issue isn't really before us and we just clean up this other point but i'm not quite sure what an issue before you will need to put it then is does the government have a reason as to why we should treat intangible benefits with respect to directing it is the same as we should treat a hence do not qualify i do not see that case those cases or any other to suggest that once it satisfies that basic basic special that is it is so either in seek our property that there is any further basis to distinguish on the basis of say person benefit or any other ground the meaning of attaining and i think that's important to know what side it does with that issue should it was all about trying to narrow the definition of the type of property but as we pointed out it left green open it particularly and left it intact and it started to a model  is that is that starting to get close to this where what the defendant would be described as doing is compelling the victim to deal with the union albion context of wages and well i mean i think every read that case i think it's a little bit relationship that's beneficial to the union but not getting anything particular the government's careful to define this specifically also when it did define the property in two ways as wages and benefits which are clearly something that can transfer from person to another and we don't believe that this is on all fours with that ok and i also believe that issue is goes to the question of preferable property which is an issue that for the purposes of this decision is not before you because it was there was no transfer of money for wages but was a recognition of which does seem more like an intangible it is your point you want to assume that this is a qualifying property under shudder and the employer has yet to pay qualifies under scheidler and under say a car is certainly something intangible property does yes right so just assume it's the type of use union labor this happened as actually up three days before the event was take place when they were setting up the stage so they didn't have to hire additional workers it wasn't workers that they needed they had everybody they needed to do the job to persist with the requirement to hire additional ones  it but another one and this was responding to such kind as you about what was the harm the harm it's it did differently that in this case that they already had the workers they needed and that these were in fact wholly additional workers to what they needed to complete the job so there's you know again  unpack all the parts that go into the government's theory of wrongfulness here but both are important and it would be a different case if they had not the harm certainly would be less if they had already not hired the workers although i think we would believe that it was still a violation of the licens but that's this is not a labor case that is these individuals were not union members or agents of the union and while their actions benefited the union it's not the government's theory that that was essential that if they could have asked them to hire people who were friends or other people that affected union members was is not central and it's not the union unions rights the shape the scope of wrongfulness here but what these particular defendants were permitted to do as a public officials lower qualifying intangible right but i'm adding those that qualification do just that there's a case in which there was a transfer of a property to a third party who had interest in tegan istic to the right in which the recipient would not be somebody who by receiving it would benefit the transfer i'm not aware i mean again the cars are relatively recent there's no not at most these cases are going to bed earlier cases of that type of property being trained in which the recipient would not be somebody who by receiving it would benefit the transfer i would be happy to look for but i think i'd get the again i think the party just want to make cite with approval unless he believed that those were compatible ideas but whether there's been a case since those cases again a relatively narrow frame of time i would be happy to look at but i don't know for a fact but also one other point i  and other hot actors that we submit supports the court's decision and initial point we have put in our papers that we believe that the government has really presented you with a straw man issue here today that the district court did not require the government to prove a person of benefit in any sense of the word the record is clear is a ballot in fact that the government requested that the court issue a rule on the legal issue of whether no alternative argument in this submission or at any other time despite several chances to do sell demonstrating why the facts it has described are sufficient under the law to establish that was that and transfer the property to a third person do you have this added requiring of showing a personal benefit to the person who communicated the threat i don't see where you're getting or where the district co in a casket if a defendant were to transfer cash to a third party with whom i have no connection and for which i will receive absolutely no benefit whether it's a piece of the cash or s by virtue of the obtaining property element to destroy the destruction that is predicated on the idea that there is no difference between the case of a transfer to a third party of cash precisely what she learned seeker and per her frankly look to what the government did and per house for example is very similar to what it did here wages and benefits is an intangible right that one didn't a quill or rather i should say there was no deprivation of that property for intangible property until the wages and benefits were paid and those wages and benefits were not paid until the local eleven union members who worked with them  well i want to be clear that the government didn't appeal that instruction the government could have gone to trial and received an instruction and preserved that issue it chose not to chose to follow the procedure in which it was allowed to submit whatever facts it wished and the issue of whether obtaining had been shown and the three facts that it showed simply did not talk about the parent being at our office position if we decide to direct benefits not the crucial thing would be to vacat decided the mcdonnell case in its opinion the court noted conscientious public officials and raised meetings with constituents authorities i take i heard from the government today contact other officials on he behalf and include them in advance all the time representative government assumes that public officials will hear from from constituents and that appropriately on their concerns that the notion of personal benefit is not something that comes out of whole cloth it's suggested in the case law is one of those fundamental problems that comes out of the excuse me i'm hearing it and i may be misconstruing it but i'm hearing everything you said so far as really being directed towards what the conduct alleged feel was wrong in the first instance which doesn't seem to be the issue before us on this appeal i think as the court has presented this issue were assuming the conduct was itself wrongful worsening there's property and some question as to whether we of the proposed constructions which there was no suggestion to come through were proposed they provided examples of how one might obtain property obtain unusual case yes ok so like any unusual case there are many possible points of attack yes none of which may merit many of which may have merit yes as it happens the district court singled out one we're going to focus on that issue and i guess i'm trying to find out as to just value issue whether a direct benefit is required to prove obtaining when there is a transfer to a third party do you have a reason to the relevant cases i would say digital is a strong case in the tenth circuit is one that's closest to this one person tried to return a political favor by forcing a contractor to hire the wife of a political supporter as a condition of getting a contract the same same benefits this party did get something out of it which was a bit too replay of the political supporter that would be comparable to the benefit here but again our point is it wasn't required and it certainly wasn't basis for that i would also say that this court's decision in birth other than the part that ultimately from him to other people and found that that was a valid transfer under scheidler without suggesting that personal benefit had been shown to him is very much on all fours with the green itself but again those are two recent cases that were wages and benefits was the issue th court to just look at the case pages but two six zero seven of the case because it actually addresses says something about green well that was cited by the district court it supports the government's position and it says in some that it would be reasonable to the government to distinguish between for purposes between places that in which a public actor acts on behalf of the public interest or acts are to benefit a private party that would be a reasonable distinction so in that case it actually and its conduct means decisively so in that case that actually again i believe that