in large measure uses the cases of get over says gates and years versus gates which they cited three fifty seven fed third nine eleven and three fifty four fred third for eight perhaps the judge used the same ruling at that time for her decision it's not clear she didn't give any guidance over both of those cases were subsequently and prior to today supersede third nine eleven is superseded by this opinion deers versus gates also heavily relied upon by the attorney for when it was superseded by an on bank ruling at four twenty moment false imprisonment the cause of the victim to to lose employment and employment opportunities was an injury to business or property within the meaning of section eighteen u s c nine hundred sixty four in other words exactly the opposite of what they previously stood for when they were utilized by my opponents and i to no way suggest misconduct because it's clear that when my opponent filed his opposition in june of that year it was in correct that under our law now just stopping some guy from working the way he wants to work is enough to knock a rico announce soon that's true whether that's true or not doesn't he say that his his computers and his records were seized quite right not just mr leonard and mrs leonard at the time just the douglas but also the real incorporation in the real incorporation of santa monica had business records seized and were maintained are you know what are you talking and then are we still to i'm talking about the chinese speaking of property and i'm talking about the attorney's fees that were incurred specifically to defeat the extortion ery threats that were set forth but the court is right quite right i did not mean to move away from that position i will put a punctuation obviously i agree with the court's position with regard to property who don't agree with my positions that i don't necessarily have a large i will agree with the court's posit at least seemingly inherent in its and its statement or it but rather to defend against extortion any threats which he did in the way that i suggested in the kind of a dime store novel seemingly idea of what occurred but was very real in addition to that we have in our  pleadings and in the briefs exposed and discussed various cases that support not just attorneys fees but the loss of profits when you divert the very large sums of money that were diverted to lakeman watkins you not have the money to support your torrent store and it goes out of business not to mention that mr leonard was trying to protect himself and defend himself from what he did not know for sure was going on he could not attend to his businesses maybe he shouldn't that high on legal you put him out of business you know i would have done it cheaper but however nobody asked me but what it certainly did occur is that it was indeed effective and i suppose that's why people do tend to to pay those kinds of fees i don't know  relations as being a tort under california law sufficient for the predicate act that is indeed one of our allegations amongst our state causes of action was intentional and interference with prospective business advanced training for a moment to control of the newton station now we alleged as best we understood the facts with regard to control of the newton station for the very first time the district court in its wisdom gave facts with regard to our not being able to have adequately alleged of the control at that time we were not however given an opportunity to act upon those salient thoughts because that was very first time that it ever been raised previously we had been talked about with regard to not properly alleging sufficient business damages or damages to property and as i said perhaps the court was operating off the law as it was at the time no criticism there but when we were given for the first time the suggestion that we had not adequately alleged control of the newton area station we were not given an opportunity to amend to show that we could get around that pleading we don't call you called you dump the enterprise and we call this enterprise the newton area station yeah i take it that's one of them the other was the quality food company quality food and i mean sufficient control of the people involved in going in and making these illegal searches and seizures and that was essentially started when we're not talking about and we're not we're not we don't have the enterprise in front of us do we just have control of this thing whatever it was that's where it's true the issue is control it is time and i believe that we can adequately if given the opportunity mr silver had him in his office he had to work out place where all these fellas from the newton area station would come and we have alleged and we believe we can prove that they received gratuities and money and women as a matter of fact at that location which brought about the control over the new area station at least at this point those are allegations and we believe that we can plead around this problem you could have the opportunity for them or as i mentioned briefly with regard to quality foods there was no comment nor decision by the court that we had not adequately alleged that quality foods was controlled and a part of this as an enterprise   gauging this activity we can prove and we will allege if allowed to do so the charge when had previously collected money for quality foods and had received a percentage and would have received a percentage of the collection of this it's far as i can read the briefs everybody's argued controlled what can i think not exactly the enterprise issue that's a question or assuming there is an enterprise that these people control and correct general motors is an enterprise period right pleading here in fact contrary to what we were just told by my distinguished counsel colleague the allegation for the new area stations paragraph forty so on page three sixty nine of the record moving forward though what we have is an argument here that's being or an allegation that's being certain third amended complaint that silver when and foods somehow control particular branch of the los angeles police department it is not something that silver or foods inc could control simply by paying a bribe assuming that that allegation is deemed to be correct or three officers there's no evidence of that there's no alec how do we how do we know how do we know that you can't capture the new station by paying money to when who then distributed among his colleagues or you pay extra money to the colleagues to how do we know from the pleading not from not from the world how do we know from the planing that that was the north ition to gain control of the newton area station from the pleading your bribes to another police officers i suppose if you were paying enough bribes to enough police officers you might arguably be able to control an enterprise i don't see that's what we have here we have an aspect of what this new area station is that is more than just an amorphous concept how can you how can the payment of a bribe to a single police officer control anything other than that police officer or the police officers that he may distribute the drives to that would not be the newton area station that would be payment to sergeant when that would be a payment to sergeant when and other police record is before the court secondly with respect to rico just as a closing observation it's a statute that was originally crafted and drafted for purposes that were very tightly confined to criminal enterprise spinning well out of control and judge marshall in the district court and others are trying to rein it in and i hope this court will do  complaint and you know i think their chance to be more specific to be to make this well play that has run i want to discuss the property or business injury issue with the court today or the two thousand and six to primm court decision that resolved the competing for perspectives of the well not well the ninth circuit and the as as represented in the as and the seventh circuit as represented evidence and it shows the evidence of perspective which was the entire that or the clinics worker's ability to continue to do the work that they wanted to do was not a rico injury for purposes of the statute the other or business injuries i agree with you but the fact is you have a proximate cause issue and the there are a lots of factors that go into why businesses continue to operate or closed certainly restaurants that you know don't last long most of them and as the court identified in this report identified and ends up we cannot say for certainty that any particular injury any particular result flowed from any particular act when you're talking about it as in more  your honour's is is this issue about the control of the enterprise i don't as i read the complaint i don't see any allegations of of an ad hoc formation for district down and whatever happened that is you know those may be torts that can be addressed or even may be crimes that can be addressed in another form but they're not proper for a rico complaint and with that you justice prior was that threatening or committing physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion which obstructs to raise or effects commerce falls outside the scope of the hobs that meaning that there was no is intentional interference with prospective business advantage that is a california tort there's been no attack on that as being the predicate act secondly the issue about ns the council has also respectfully misstated what happened nancy and was a case in which it revolved around very particular ice facts the facts were a situation where there was an allegation that somebody went out of business because the other person wasn't paying his taxes to the state and therefore was getting a competitive advantage and the court rightly found that the person  this enterprise the really end of malibu reel in the santa monica following the sort of a cookie cutter formula had both been successful torrence was following the same formula there was no money to keep it afloat during the early time and that's what we can prove and that's what why it went out of business there's nothing speculative about that that is entirely different situation all of this is captured on the tape the tape was held on the person the man you have a skull was placed there by the f