ering activity that we allege this forty five predicate acts there are it took it occurred over a seven year period the criminality involved multiple victims and involve multiple  now judge kenyan was relying upon the kit the weitzman case wisemen it had a subsequent history that's critical to the analysis and yet it's missing from the decision that dismissed are claiming in the subsequent history the court held that there was indeed upon amended pleadings the court in wiseman held that there was indeed a pattern of racketeering activity and the facts of that case were very similar to the in fact the allegations of pattern in that case with far less demand far less commanding than the allegations of pattern here wiseman also involved somebody who was looting in a state the number of victims that were involved in the number of predicate acts that were involved and fairly contained in our case again this was a massive fraud that took place through very predicate activity wasn't just mailing wire fraud it involved extortion it involved transporting stolen goods across state lines ensured this is not a small contained contained level of criminality it was substantial now it's close to end continuity meaning that that we don't we don't we're not required to show that this would continue into the future but that it satisfied the closed in continuity rubric of the rico statute of the precedent that interprets the no doubt that we need that standard if you look at the all the cases the all the rico cases that we cite including h j inc which is the supreme court and fresh meadows and men drain a state will concern cases that would even  perhaps as an example of the up location of the stand one of the things i've always thought about are some reorder practices that sometimes there's a principle and then the principle gets applied a lot in a routine it's sometimes helpful to look at how we applied the the standard in particular facts or well i appreciate the pointer and i think that in that case the cases is very significant because it does show how the standard would be applied and if applied here i think it more than dictates that a that a pattern of racketeering activity would be found even if the case wasn't cited and even if we didn't rely on the other cases more than show that the pattern here is is cognize a bill of sufficient to satisfy our our requirement to the stablish in continuity plus relationship again to a closed ended pattern of racketeering activity if you look at the lawrence vs cohen case the mandamus case those cases to deal with circumstances where we have the looting of an estate and where it was found to be ample satisfactory via the pleadings were found to be satisfactory in addition i would note and it's it's not something that the judge keenan directly addresses in his decision but there's more than ample authority cited in our  he found that the probate a succession didn't apply and he was absolutely correct in making that finding if you look at the supreme court's decision in the marshall case and its progeny there is no doubt that this case the case that's before you now does not  is so are these items that you see are they part of the estate we don't seek guidance we seek money there is nothing that we seek that's part of the estate and even if it were i would point you to the left the woods to case which that context absolutely and the cases will say that there are you know we cited at least four well at least three cases that make that point are you seeking money damages on behalf of the state as well as on behalf of corporations that actually own the that property its both my clients individually own property and the corporations and yes we would have to amend the night if time permitted i would have got to the point next namely that we should be allowed to amend it's a really works that also go on to state that your client or its corporation and their corporations have not yet received the distribution yes and we're pursuing those are we pursuing the proceeds on behalf of the estate the kind of standing that we believe the plaintiffs lacked was article three standing in fact as prudential standing and the august twenty eighth a letter we submitted has a case as a show we made that mistake that means that attorney mentioned extortion as a predicate act extortion was raised for the first time in the appellate briefs it was not mentioned below the complaint does not allege an extortion cause of action is missing at least t that there are many cases say that if you have a single scheme to defraud a single victim of one piece of property or one sum of money and you mail multiple letters  that's not very persuasive of a pattern even though it might constitute several counts of mail fraud but it seems to me and you can correct me if i'm wrong when i know that the plaintiff here alleges different mail fraud on different occasions may be a part of the overall scheme which they would say shows relatedness but that's the overall scheme read pretty broadly there are very different instances of what they would claim  different frauds involved aren't there you know different different situations in which different paintings are of fortunately sold for when the allegations would have to take is true for these purposes and sold at lowball prices to confederates and then really under the control of your clients then sold for big profits by them that's what they say but these are these it may be one o overall scheme is not quite the same thing as i have a constant and i'm working on you and i'm trying to get your money and i send you repeated emails interstate emails or something like that as part of the same narrow project scheme there's an overall project when you say the project is to get all the assets of the estate well first of all some of their allegations are from before there even was an estate there trying to a the complaint get as that's from mr wong sr and then it goes on over a period of seven years with different little projects where in some cases they say things are physically stolen  other cases there's this scheme with respect to different items to sell them for the low ball prices i mean aren't these you know first of all an extended period of time and secondly rather different ovals well they're all related and other fact have to be all related to i mean you're trying to i know you have your related or can't be a pattern right that's right and other factors are important it's not just the duration it's the fact that there are two victims to purchase offense with five buyers in china making a single appearance each and what the district court believed was a single narrow purpose but that the supreme court years notes that the estate is not a party to this action andrew wang is being sued in his individual capacity andrew as an individual is different for andrew the representative there are different parties with respect to the estate could you address your argument please that the probate exception deprives us of subject matter jurisdiction here i understood that the supreme court has narrowed that and the marshall case and that the exception applies only if we have to perform a purely probate act or ricci race in the custody of the state court is my understanding too narrow no that's exactly right but we have a rare case here where both prongs get falls within the testator had capacity to execute the most recent will and that's been stayed pending discovery and collection of the assets is say it's a those both of those issues are raised a surrogate there's been a bankruptcy the ribs that was an appeal there are been read he did motions and petitions that need not have been filed in my opinion and i'm but certainly the circuit court is not soley responsible for taking thirteen years right now there are several petitions pending and there are multiple to patients that have been filed that are stayed the surrogate has decided that things should proceed in a particular order that and i don't know the answer t that with respect to the probate exception so the in the district court in this case will be called upon to determine who owns what assets the left but what's case decided that the ownership of assets was a matter within the exception and dismissed that particular claim in the case i just mentioned the directs which is the same issue as whether to another will and that is within the first prong an appropriate exception have cited as marshall decisions in our briefs showing what the courts have determined were within the probate exception since marshall and they are very similar to our case majority of respect their views and they might well be right but that might be a question we have to face if we have not previously decided and that is an important question i answered in the brief i just don't remember it this morning or thank you thank our argument here namely that the probate exception would not apply to the facts at bar of the ode to the claims that bar the second point i'd make is your right your honor there are other circuits that applied to the probate exception in the context of a federal question in where this federal question jurisdiction however not the second circuit the case that cited by by the appellee is the seventh circuit case and in fact it was submitted before marshall was  decided the most important point i'd make though on my in the context of my rebuttal is that the statute of limitations is going to pass soon on many of the claims we deserted in many claims that could be asserted because of the thieving and the theft and the state and the conversion of all the work here is sixty million dollars worth of work was liquidated by the defendants sixty million dollars effectively stolen from the state and from my clients the fact of the matter is if this case if this case remains dismissed if the rico claims and remain dismissed the statutes of limitations will pass and justice will never have it's de that's a fact now i'm not saying that that's sho influence your assessment of the law by any means i just think that it points to the urgency of the issue at hand and and puts it in a practical context we stand behind our arguments and we believe very firmly that a pattern of racket