what is important for the purposes of this case is how the court this court analyzed that issue it didn't just say oh this was a distance case this is a sitting civil penalty and a story you're entitled to a younger  investigation there was a warrant that was secured by probably by probable cause to want to shut up four hundred violations the state was behind that the state was concerned about something that was happening that was put in i this i read spurn as saying essentially look we have these three categories of general categories of proceedings that when a qualified number that's the threshold sort of scrutiny and so why would we prefer to leave used in a setting up a framework where all of the t s specific qualities that you are focused on here really fall into the exception bucket would you explicitly said you're not trying to pursue you look at whether something is an important state interest you look at the generic proceeding of this french factories bill before you get to those factors and ask you look at have it throughout the action and ask whether it is akin to a criminal saying that it's not a quick look into a criminal prosecution is that private counsel were involved it was private counsel who did the investigation and in order for us as a or or this or court to figure out whether you're right about that it's a very intrusive look into the state's methods  contingency fee lawyers as your honor pointed out don't have the apparatus that the state has to do a real investigation i mean this is a distraction to private lawyers who at that time haven't even been retain that so when you have a problem doesn't that cut the other one i mean if with whatever tools the private counsel have they've had enough basis to fight in this lawsuit consistent with rule eleven doesn't that mean it's actually worse not better for your crime you know seems to me unrealistic to suppose that the attorney general would say well you know don't play me like it was these private lawyers i had nothing to do with it i did the investigation and assuming we we accept that premise that if the attorney general is going to be politically accountable for this decision to bring this lawsuit i mean why doesn't that i as a matter of the the actual litigation is being done by by private lawyers that it seems to have  allegations that were being made and this complaint not that i mean it's my position that in they had john a real investigation here like they would have done in a criminal case this would never be a problem because the sides  they're not even arguing that there's an exception to spread here the district court held that this was younger abstention the serial and it's exactly the sort of action that's been recognized as well as a criminal so it's interesting that his council doesn't mention this cour williams decision williams is a nice circuit decision which the state of washington brought a consumer protection action in the under the state's huge law and the states you'd outlaw the you know the attorney general exactly a back to the kids in their favor and at the district court level we had a judge or takei analyzing this area and say that there is no litmus test for investigations under  sprint and let me give you an example of that there is in sprint states do more of these versus sims as a case that was a criminal you know what younger abstention was appropriate in more versus t texas sued they brought a child an emergency protection action the same day as they received one report of child abuse that was the investigation they said the same day  our allegations are clear and the state court case we say that they lie and deceive the public by omitting relevant information about plavix they deny it and we've spent six years  the federal courts are recognize that it's proper to devon to show comedy to the state courts and stay their hand and hold back from interfering with an ongoing state or as a criminal prosecution  and it allow that decision of the state to bring this action in the st place is one that is not subject to nd guessing by private plane to its state attorney general decide further than one type of case this is because i think that's exactly what the case law shows the case law shows that when you have is a consumer protection you do have action brought by the state attorney general and you don't look believe is the attorney disciplinary committee in new jersey and those cases clearly involved committees that had a statutory statutory requirement to conduct in the best patients before bringing charges there is no corollary under state law for you that actually is probably the attorney general is or any general really has the authority to bring the actions once they've made the determination the action is worth bringing in a strange feeling you know that there is a rule abuse followed by an emergency protection proceedings initiated the same day so you've got a perhaps from start to start a business and a warning until close of business those are the courts filing window in the afternoon perhaps eight hundred and ten hours in the state of texas well the lawsuit conducts whatever investigation of the allegations that they're meant to conduct and designs the lawsuit is worth one and now spin and justice disclose and divulge because the record investigation is protected by the government's deliberative process and so the suggestion that we're required to actually divulge what the investigation the attorney general went through i would  and the attorney general because the stand i find it likely that the attorney general would object on terri attorney client grounds but so i am back to thinking that you are arguing that you should ignore the part as for the talk about investigation i  don't really i mean right now you're saying we shouldn't ask about that so i don't really understand what you think we're supposed to look at for investigation i think they're going to says of younger you should accept appellants representation that my office conducted an investigation i think that's sufficient to satisfy youngers discussion of investigation and that regard they say it was just private counsel who did the investigation you're calling that your office is investigation and now t saying that's enough but not at all so there's a lot right we're saying it's not only us it's pleadings in the federal court case that do not dispute that a national investigation was conducted by private counsel i don't think my friend is contesting that but also that our office the attorney general's office internally conducted an investigation so i thought they were contesting that and i'm not sure i'm seeing on the page you cited where it says that that happened but maybe i just i'm missing  so i thought that they were now saying that that meant that the attorney general had you that the private counsel now in a not matter maybe your argument is investigation doesn't matter or rather counsel of the laugh but i had not understood that there was agreement between the parties on the idea you know and i suppose there are two ways to read this and i it's interesting because i didn't notice in the reply materials films were actually saying that this office did nothing investigation into the bona fides of the case before filing we do not be a g control this case as it controls all of you that public actions and does not give its entire authority to private counsel to prosecute the case without attorney general even if the case is prosecuted using private counsel and i don't there's nothing i'm not aware of anything inconsistent between indicating the public interest hawaii's consumer protection laws with the law and the private attorneys to obtain a fee in this case six years ago we're not trying to compel their speech in any fashion just to prevent them from lying and deceiving the hawaii public and going to men is the  to federal court on the basis of federal jurisdiction reveals that plavix council at that time didn't raise the st amendment as a basis for federal arising under jurisdiction so that point times at the very least  it's council made a strategic decision not to say that the st amendment was a core federal issue that went to the heart of this case well i'm sure they could have right because it's really an offense i mean could they have to make i'm not sure they could have said that this under the f t c and i believe one other federal issue but not the st and then we had six years to sort of hammer out the issues in the state court proceeding and what's at stake i think we should allow this case to go to put two minutes on the clock for t