be entitled to go forward on the merits of the federal claim if needed or to amend the complaint to conform to the person evidence discovered there were two federal claims one of course the rocketeer influenced and corrupt organization defendants set themselves up in a situation in which they could still we'll the petroleum fund of the state of nevada which is the funding contains millions of dollars contract advised state and emergency existed and that they would take over and then they were in charge of the cleanup and then they were in charge of the billing they were in charge of how much was paid they were in charge of stuff there so let's go i'm you know the statute is like really long and detailed but so you have to find a place in the statute that you land and you're saying that your predicate offense is a fraud correct overcharging just i guess maybe i'm missing something here but it did this was this decided on summary judgment yes it was now it sounds a bit like your argument is that you were charged too much part of the argument well the fact that they were in a position to charge too much well i guess i don't understand what you mean by they were in a position to charge too much because why is that fraud and what is the advise the state but also determine the scope and what would be charged in that cleanup there were no why is that fraud weren't weren't you and didn't didn't you know that we did not know that it was that as a given that you had alleged enough of a predicate that you still have to go back to the statute on the pattern issue and i'm frankly having some difficulty understanding what is the pattern for future repetition or the threat based on this record contract was left by the state for a contractor to advise them on underground cleanup that sink contractor becomes the contractor who will clean up the site on the advice of themselves here's the state we are asking your advice to this need to be cleaned up yes and it's an emergency you need to take it over now we're in charge of that just a fraud statute it's a fairly as you know technical statute that you have to get and in between and i am really having trouble understanding the future refutation can this happen again of course and only in this situation did you have someone who know how to get and we don't know i mean that's what i'm having trouble with why is it going to happen and how do you know that anough to get a pattern because it happened once in your view right that's correct that's all the and let me tell you the very next person who purchased the property was also driven into bankruptcy by overcharging and their contractor harding because the most important point is how much where is that where is the check to see how never public policy and if there may be a conflict of interest if there's a state court remedy for but thank well it's important clean up the environment so go and do that but it didn't mean to take someone's property from them without them having the right to say you're spending too much there is a few about this go something should not happen here there was a on how much should this cost really has to happen but at one point someone has the right to determine whether those costs are reasonable compared to what was cleaned up let's talk about a coke can which is not that much larger than this cup and one point two million dollars was spent on the cleanup not only that my clients faced a claim from the state of twenty one million dollar fine he was pressured into a situation where he had to claim the property in order to protect himself as did the next owner of the property that should not happen that should not be the result of a cleanup of property t violation it's a deprivation of property that's correct and what is the deprivation of the loss of value of property that we would look to to see whether or not there's a constitutional violation here well the value of and and backed up the deputy attorney general who i am told that was harding's letter that supported the attorney general saying that two hundred fifty thousand dollars would be the required remainder of the clean up although they had made an agreement which w you know that he had a maximum i guess i'm having some difficulty here because you seem to be mixing and matching fraud which seems like you're describing and a constitutional violation because they're not th court on latin on behalf of party e s e and the other pelleas and i wish i could stand before you and say this was a case of first impression but it is not it is a factually intensity case and as you know under the bomber case if there's anything in the record to support this this court can affirm the decision and this was a case that the district court level was summary judgment was granted in favor of my clients and the record adequately supports that it is not my inten to stand before the appeal court and argue the facts suffice it to say that in our brief there are very specific sites to the record which support the facts that are in question with that said there will be some brief discussion of some of the important facts but as as the court has noted and the court indicated two things the lower level first there were no predicate acts and second of all there was no pattern and in making that finding they look at some of the key facts and what the court needs to realize is under the provisions of the nevada  vision of environmental protection the appellant hired his own engineers not the a pelleas but his own engineers and they are the ones that do what's called a corrective action plan and  site characterization his own engineers are the ones that determine the cleanup costs his own engine yours are the ones that determined that this was an emergency not my client's hardeen is a what's called  on call task oriented contractor with the state and what is what happens is when the state of nevada does not have the expertise within this department they on an on call basis w would contract with my client to review and in this case test results the record will reveal that the site characterization plan and the remediate remediation equipment was already installed on the property already up and going when my client was asked by the state to review test results that supported in the record and that's indicated in my brief so they concluded that there was no no predicate acts and as the court has already aptly noted there was only one instance so based upon this one instant in this one series of events there is no pattern under rico you find that there were predicate acts you determine that there was a pattern there was no damage and what's important in this case and what again is supported by the record is that the appellant in this case filed bankruptcy he requested the court to sell this property he requested the bankruptcy court to approve the sale for one point four million which is again supported in the record that was the sale price so he requested the sale of the bankruptcy court in the bankruptcy court approved it so there was no damage even if you find that there were predicate acts and there was a pattern now with regard to the due process claim in the one nine hundred eighty three claim the district court ruled that harding my client the appellee in this case was not a state action actor and that is supported by the record in our brief there are very specific  cleanup again prior to the time that harding was involved in this case and once the cleanup is order ordered the pellets in this case hires is owned engineers to do the site characterization and the remediation plan so with and under the brentwood case  there was nothing to overcome to show its deficient nexus that the state showed that there was state action again not supported in the record i don't want to have a an argument over the facts before the appellate court but that is in the record there are again some very key facts and there referenced again in our brief the first one is that the nevada division of environmental protections not har retain full control over this site they made the decisions not my client and that supported in the record in the supplemental excerpts that one seventy two and one seventy seven the other critical fact is that the emergency situation that was declared here that required that precipitated the devoted division of environmental protection to get involved in this was a letter that was sent by mr engineer the appellant in this case to the state indicating that it was an emergency it wasn't harding it wasn't the of the of pelleas in this case that declared the emergency it was as a result of his engineers activities that supported it the record action there is what's called a corrective action plan which is in the record and the corrective action plan delineates what's called the plume and indicates what corrective action is going to be necessary and then they do  mediation plan based upon that they don't make a determination as to how much or what the quantities are that are actually in the soils ok of contracts that they had entered into with the state to advise them harding was always advising the state of nevada us department of environmental protection whether harding was in charge of making that determination for the state to take over regard to whether anything should be cleaned up on this plight our second expert's amid the information regarding the quantity which is a part of this record he then untimely died that's when we heard the second expert that went through the forty four boxes and showed that not only was the greek of rate not necessary but there was overcharging all the way through and yes this could be repeated again again and because of the situation with the contract the advising of the state as well as the recovery