violation of the law instruct me how i'm to what the law is that i'm a plot to the facts that we've just heard the evidence we've heard the facts we find when does it become an illegal gambling about to say we don't have to worry about it here and and i thought it was because you were going to say the government that the government has has it that he had died men alleges and the government is prepared to prove that this business itself is illegal it that that if you don't have to worry about violations by a legal business the business itself is  illegal and that would make it an easy thing to charge the jury am i wrong that's right that it was i was your honor we don't understand we appreciate your effort to clarify but we don't understand what makes it  when does it become you know we've heard evidence about validating this restriction violating that restriction possibly violating a third restrict how do we decide whether it's actually we have a we appreciate that your honor but we don't think they've proved it but they proved other violations not tell us what the general principle is the general standard you didn't allege here that it was a non charitable them that isn't that the distinction that you're going to have to make to survive here yes that they're discrete acts that were made by the business consideration for our statues does not amount to a violation of federal section nineteen eighty five nine hundred fifty five we're not usurp in florida law it's just that if it's about a lesion a federal law it's a predicate act for rico purposes ok so we have to determine whether a violation of florida law converts a business into an illegal gambling business under florida law because that's the one nine hundred fifty five standard all right so brightened into stands for the proposition that under florida law the florida supreme the florida supreme court the final expires it or of florida law whose decisions about  we have to follow has held that it doesn't make a business an illegal gambling business under state law for it to violate the restrictions on gambling that argument they held that a nine charitable organization that is running an illegal that is running a bang go operation not directly for a charitable organization had they held  business you concede that it is a violation that a business a bingo business it's not charitable ripping run by non charitable organization one thing clear violation of all these gambling restrictions does not under florida law make a business and illegal gambling business would that preclude a nine business is not an illegal business gambling business under florida law and therefore does not qualify as a violation of nineteenth of the five which would itself violate florida  a when the nine hundred fifty five is predicated on florida bingo statute that will not be sufficient for a florida rico act and i agree with judge prior that even if that is what the florida court was holding sounds we determine that a valentia of the gambling statute makes a being go operation and illegal are unlawful gambling business under florida law that would necessarily have compelled the conclusion that it was a predicate act under the state rico statute would it not would it not at that time i don't know the way that the hundred fifty five necessarily depended on whether under state law it was an illegal gambling business did it not under state law it depended on whether it was illegal under state law but the illegal g predicate one hundred fifty five to predicate a florida rico statute under was not before the florida supreme court because at that time the state of florida had not alleged in their information the federal subsection of the florida rico act that incorporated the