some of the arguments challenging yet our position here is that the cases of england armor and subsequent cases none of those address the concerns that we have raised here the issues here are with the statutory taxed of nine hundred and fifty one and have not yet been reconciled by this court specifically the issue of if you're a future injury and injury to property i will focus  my argument here on property because i think it's just the easiest to conceptualize the cases that are really the are predominant in the circuit on these issues and i recognize that both judges robbery and contains no reference to property harm anyone also construed cases duncan and lists in the circuit duncan talked about placing a person in fear of  issues here it does not have fear of harm to property immediate or future is one of the elements it was not construed and if victims fear of bodily harm the necessary to fear of violent physical force but neither one of those cases answers the whole problem of injury to property and that is a provision that by the plain language is included in hot sec robbery we have to begin with a categorical approach we look at the statutory definition the emphasis is on the elements of the offense has been it's been interpreted as requiring straw on physical force or violent force that is as the curtis johnson case mentioned force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person d such places i am not aware of cases in which it has been applied in this way i know that we have to look about look and we do this analysis about whether there's a realistic probability of  these situations coming to pass and my response to that would be that's a very easy fix the government could simply clarify that they do not would not will not utilize this provision to prosecute has that robbery against threats to property the government has made no delineation here and i think that that means that it falls within the fair ambit of this potential of the potential prosecution i believe in our opening brief we cited to an argument in another circuit where the united states basically asserted we're not saying that this has to do with injury to property they were trying to make a hard line distinction on that and i think that was because they were trying to save that under the for being one point two analysis but we don't have a clear statement here and as a criminal defense attorney that means our clients are at risk of prosecution because that has not been foreclosed whether or not it has been advanced yet i think it's me increasingly got into well situated in the internet age i think we can really invision applications of this that could apply to intangible property i offered that suggestion i've been thinking a lot also about i put out a call involving revenge for something that someone threatens to release and less an  was not necessarily personal reputational harm but like a concept that that could harm a property what if that person who was threatened had a business and that business was homeschooling in that context that business that real property could be harmed by the release of that and they could and i don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole but i i do think there are applications that could fairly be put be also think this is really based on the plain language how exactly has that property within it that language about threats to property and so i think we can't fairly rule that out of a criminal statute i think that's embedded within it and i have not found any analysis that talks about how we would handle a threat to property in the south this property has no body what is the degree of force required for injury to property is it mere property damage what is the quantum of force what is that language that we are using to analyze that what is violent force when it is applied against property we have no boundaries we have no way to analyze that which i think it's a little bit into our concerns about broad in broad potential harm and big mess  threats to property do not necessarily create a threat to the person and i know that that has been an argument that has been discussed in numerous cases nor does it require proximity and while certainly recognize this court's precedent discussing have sac robbery you do not think that this clause has ever been construed in i do not think it's merely hypothetical i see that i have just about two minutes remaining so if there are further questions for me at this moment i will reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal ok very well mr bond will turn to you now your  e act robbery involving force or threat of force against property still involves the use or threatened use of physical force the only difference is that the force is directed to property as opposed to person and the property that suffers a physical injury even though the threat is made to the possessor of that property if we're looking to counsel's example with regard to the malware the injury is as i can read that article the injury would be hypothetical presented by counsel is probably more possibly more lies with extortion than is robbery again what we're looking at in that hypothetical is you're describing an individual who runs bullishness parasitic software s a customer data from company's website threaten to shut down the website if they are stopped and expose so well that presents is that there is consent from the company because they have the ability to stop who are exposed visual but they're not doing so because they're being threatened the problem is in that hypothetical there is no physical force do you are you aware of is this is cases in which the government has used  with in essence damage to computer systems can you imagine it was a prosecutor sure and i think the computer system itself that is his ickle property is being damaged by the mal it's being damaged by the malicious software so there is no single damage it's not necessarily in the traditional taking someone say someone takes my cellphone and smashes it or cracks and physically damages the property that s we're not necessarily making that contentions i was simply pointing out that that could be the case i don't i don't see well more i wear of any sort of hops that prosecution following that route what i would point to though without the use of force a defendant has to point to his or her own case or other actual cases in which the courts apply the statute in a manner that resulted in a conviction even though there's a horse was not used by th is a very theoretical concept brought forth by this kind of it does not apply to what we're seeing here above stated reasons that we stayed here today we respectfully request that your honors are firm in judgment of the district court in this case thank you very much ok thank you mr bond harmer you're about two minutes  proposed even though it could also be charged under extortion i believe that the united states attorney's office is a creative adversary that uses all available tools at its disposal when  when it is necessary so i can't just because there's another opportunity under computer fraud or other kinds of statutes to criminalize a specific set of behaviors does not mean that that tool will not be by the government as long as it remains on the books and as long as it is permissible i think that there was an analysis in the nd circuit case of hell that talked about a hypothetical saying something along the lines of like that's a nice car that's you know i'm nice car it would be a shame if you were able to drive it and that phrase was trying to imply this idea of a physical threat to a person as it relates to a car right it's talking about the property but there's this implication if has a call injury to a person and i think that it's very easy to look conceptualize how th property offense could occur because all you have to do is say that's a really nice car and i hope nothing would happen to it right so it's a threat to this property unless someone takes some kind of  so i think that there is a way to see how this could manifest that doesn't feel like it is outside of our normal world in the criminal context we believe that there  is that this is per clothes the application of this is a predicate offense for eighteen u s c nine hundred and twenty four dollars c under the st clause that the property clause has real is a real phrase that must be construed and its presence there