take the first reasonably look at the statutes focus as an anti racketeering statute which was then amended after the teamsters case the supreme court permitted violence because of the wage exception of the original act and the change in  hundred six the focus still physical harm economic harm it's harm to property a person and fear were fear in the statute she looked at through that prism is that's what the hobbs act is looking at and i would ask the court to take a look at the twelve the two on bank decision by the second circuit a cop in coupled with a discuss the proof in the economic harm status where you have to have proof that the defendant has the power to affect economic harm against defend against the statute it is focused on harm physical harm to the person harm to property and we look at the statute talks about interfering with commerce but by robbery extortion it includes attempts and conspires to do so and then if that includes people who commit or threaten physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section again the statutes focus on those concrete hands which proselytizing divine retribution that would be within the ambit of the act either before the next reason it asked the court to consider this adoption or you go beyond that yes i have i'm sure you're familiar with the ninth circuit's jury instructions form your instructions  and that they they essentially invite you to put in either economic injury or some other kind of nonviolent harm do they not yes i don't think i think this court has held that the pattern jury instructions are not authoritative  may be found despite even destruction permitted reputational harm that would not for that would not affect this to no review of the question we're presenting and i do agree that's imitation there perhaps that's why judge walter erred the way he did by permitting this theory harm that in interstate commerce congress when they passed a hobbs that was aware that this very conduct was subject to federal probation and you go to prison for it so there was no need to expand the hobbs act in that way  convicted of both he was and what is the difference between the two other than the character that if seventy five girls specifically deal with the reputational threat and provides a lesser sentence for that were the other differences between the two the difference would be i think that a seventy five b focus on communications in interstate commerce that relates to the store strikes even strikes with violence adoption trip lens to make clear that obtaining property was physical property and didn't include rights and this was about of course abortion centers whether they could sue protesters for interfering with their ability to service their clientele that court that case went back down we came back up and now three and again the court adopted a restrictive interpretation of the last clause to show that the threats of violence or physical damage to relate to extortion or robbery can be freestanding so twice in the last decade the supreme court and in both cases especially now three they focused on in addition to the language of the statute did not interfere with the state federal balance that were adopting restrictive lenses on the other elements and so fear what is fear meaning the harms that it has to mean fear economic or or physical damage property damage that's the purpose of it  doubt these construction i'm urging is because the d o j manual adopted it under d o j policy you can only bring a hobbs act case if you can show physical harm or proper economic harm that's their manual so they've adopted it before this case that's what they instructed their lawyers to look for they can't bring this case unless under an economic harm theory and the last reason i think is this saving grace i don't think i have to prove i'm right i hope i did but if there's you can't you can't point to one circuit authority can you or if you have i might ask you to point out that says that the fear of reputational harm may not be used under the hobbs act no i don't have a hearing asking his court to better make that limitation in its construction of the statute yes if i can quickly before my time runs out i want to address two other what would be the consequence of ruling in your favor on this ruling on this issue on this issue it would knock three ninety five your three ninety three your four hundred four three to four four burns gave the money to take down the tweet not the threat of something else it was the tweet and he was lawfully entitled to have that tweet and he may have stumbled into genius but he was entitled to post that tweet does anyone know down yet down and he paid him money to take that down and maybe he paid too much and maybe he was afraid and that's all well and so great but even our tax or our home the only thing he says before that is he opens it up we haven't talked to his test how to work with trust is broken byrne's brings up the busted referral brand takes offense be wise on how colored pages for a reason the government argued this that you are one of one and one or two i'd also give you argument your three seventy nine a three eighty from burns testimony he was afraid of others joining the conversation others retreating it others faking it things getting outta hand but that's not bragged threatening action he took an act and identified what's going to what's what's likely to occur what could occur but his activities over and he got paid all that money and he took that car to take is he brought a million dollars to a stay in cash from l a there is insufficient to establish a factor in interstate commerce all his testimony was about his engagement interstate commerce we'll find out we are three seventy one i'm the founder and president of the don they burns foundation and in addition to that i'm chairman of the board of a small public company called magic jack vocal track i also manage my own personal development portfolio the million dollars cash he was supposed to covers the same subject basically but specifically deals with injury to reputation and provides for a lesser sentence for that's right your honor and i have to response to that the first one is you asked mr bell about the difference between section eight seventy five and section one nine hundred fifty one and the difference is that eight seventy five punishes transmitting communications that are threats and section one hundred fifty one punishes extortion or attempted extortion or conspiracy to extort so there's a reason why the punishment for seventy five is much lower make your honor is i think the jackson case by the second circuit is extremely instructive as mr diallo pointed out and what that case said was that at the time that the congress was considering section eight seventy five and the predecessor to the hobbs act these two things were enacted simultaneously and given that the that eight seventy five specifically contemplated definition of extortion that included threat to reputation and it was it was in for all there are there is at this an additional point a very strong one that the taxing court made which was that it is very clear and i don't think anybody disputes this and the ninth circuit has also found this in the court has a case that the that the hobbs act was on the new york penal code and the new york penal code had a definition of extortion that included fear by threat to reputation that was contemplated expressly in the new york penal code which was exposure of includes a provision for threats to reputation and makes it a far lesser crime that's right your honor but other one was not amended to include well i just seems to me you've got to time one just deals with property and physical harm and the other it has it includes a specific paragraph to make sure you're covering the but were required to look at the two statutes together i think that may be the case your honor but i would also invite the court to look at the third statute which is the travel act which is why we look at the second stash and i mean the second session i fifty one makes perfect  honor that the definitions so nine hundred fifty one deals with robbery and extortion and the definition of robbery the congress made very clear that it was limited to physical harm or  it's not i'm going to say unkind things about you on facebook right so it's and what i was looking for your honor was the reference to person or property that's what the definition of robbery says he congress then went on to define extortion and explicitly le those limitations out i think that this is where was ok i'm looking at nine hundred fifty one b one which is the definition of a robbery which is limited your honor to involve think person or property by means of actual or threatened force or violence or fear of injury immediate or future to his personal property and then it continues and then in one nine hundred fifty one b two the fines extortion and does not put ful use of actual or threatened force mylan it's fear and that these are three separate things that's right and thank you for your saying that fear could also include fear of having your reputation destroyed that's right and if and if and this rebel is right that there is no case holding specifically that threat to reputation is encompassed by the hobbs act but of course there have been numerous cases including in this circuit where the threats were not having to do with economic injury or or property and those would be past hoochie was it which is a ninth circuit case via lobos which is a ninth circuit case and campbell which is a seventh circuit  somewhat similar to this wasn't it that was clear reputation wasn't that was an exposure of a one night affair yes your honor and so and so the other thing i would say which i think is important to emphasize is that the supreme court has already said that it intended to give the hobbs act a very broad definition and it did not want courts to limit it and that if you take a look at the legislative history of the statute the congress was very careful in the way that it was defining  so so the and so the other thing i would say is we haven't talked about the nardella case which is the travel case which is also a supreme court case but the travel act also doesn't contain the travel like does not contain a definition of extortion and what the supreme court did was to say that the definition of extortion in an article in the travel law is the generic definition of extortion and the generic definition of extortion  coming under the definition of extortion and so what what it would be doing would be harmonizing all three of the statutes which all have to do with extortion so those were that's the government's position with regard to the you know i can bring your house down i have a twitter lies can be made maybe it's the truth i'm feeling evil i buy maybe you've tasted it all of that i think is enough for the jury to say what's going on here is that he is trying to induce him to part with property the other thing i want to focus on is that brink then says check your twitter by the time i get out of the gym i think you're going to have a sweet treat for me and mr ballo acknowledges that that's as close as the government gets but i think that's pretty clear that what that is is essentially a demand for money or property and what mr burns says is not how much do you want for me to for you to take this down what he says is what do you want what he says he wasn't asking for he was not yes your honor i think that's completely implausible that he was asking for additional friendships additional nights together or writing for riding in cars and if there's any doubt about that then all you need to do is go on to see what he does almost immediately after what he starts to say i want both hands full of cash i want to house i want to car etc etc etc i think when you take a look at the context of  what was happening here it's pretty clear that what he was doing was trying to induce burns department his money and the ninth circuit has already said where there's any ambiguity about this you take a look at the circumstances and that is the province of the jury the jury is to interpret that and if the question is is there sufficient evidence in the record to find that frank induced wrongfully induced burns to part with his money and property i think the answer's pretty clear what the consequences  i and on that point i think what judge walter said is you know roughly i see that amount of time to find me just finish this thought and also i can i'm happy to answer any questions about the interstate commerce issue but we can't we can't give  sense we can't give a much lower sentence because it would minimize the serious import of what kind of crime this is and especially given the sort of day and age that we're living in and and given what mr burns testified to how fast this stuff can get out there and how much no i think they would not remain i think they would not remain because if count two is out which is the extortion then that and i don't know how we get count three and four which is receiving the p economic harm theory what went up to this court was a question of whether there was enough threat to us was the challenge and the court noted that because the defendant sen videotapes to the employer that that sustained the theory of economic harm and it had a sufficient connection to interstate commerce to bring it within the ambit of the act and so it was an interstate commerce case not a it did not did definition my colleague refers to about the hobbs act only refers to the breath of the interstate commerce the reach now to does the best summary of that judge one course starts to the opinion with that discussion and he brings up this discussion of the rule  because the court is going to use that assessment both and now to and i'm surprised they now three to limit the statute so they are adopting restrictive readings in the last decade and nor della what we miss about the travel act is not valid not only  defined extortion specifically it doesn't because it imports any other violation of state law and whatnot delo discussed was if the defendant agreed you could use utah law in this blackma why can't we also where part of the crime took place in pennsylvania i believe it was why can we use pennsylvania law when the statue of first a state law and the court could find a reason that the courts assessed it was a sexually we're not to look at the labels state courts uses i'm calling you i'm calling your studio you're you're in can't you're negotiate with sony for the new spider man i'm going to take this action to make sure you don't get that contract i'm going to make sure i disrupt your business that that is what the  indictment it was a privilege and it wasn't structured to the jury it's a different theory and they may well have brought that case they did the last piece i would ask you to look for is you know the beauty of rule twenty nine it's a hard standard i get it but we have all the tax mr branka wanted money to take down the tweet and he accepted money to take down the tweet except a car to take them sweet my point is he wasn't threatening to do anything else and that's what extortion is he took his action and burns testified it's not a theory burns testified he was concerned about we tweet you can't stop it every minute that tweets out there is one more minutes can be tough media so to survive this i gave him the money to take down oh i'm not saying that burns might not have a heart he violated the mann act he had a lot to be afraid of he violated the travel act this guy had a genuine fear a captain of industry flying prostitutes around orgies on a plane interstate that's some bad news  had plenty to fear i'm not disputing any of that but you have to threaten to take action under under extortion and he took his action i guess that was the last one sample right will we evolve toward a law schools at some point i'm sure you can't you can threaten criminal prosecution against civil advantage so the the first year exercises you're going to involve in mediation your opponent you know if you committed these acts what do you do and my friend  know he's worried about that creeping up there yes absolutely i'm going to maintain that for the rest of my life he's worried about other people doing it he's about other people retrieving it you know these are his fears but that's not the threat of mr mr bright has to take as a threat in future action what about his statement where he says check my twitter the conversation will grow that is right basically a statement that it will grow because of what the  future action i don't think it is a threat a few tracks a threat of non action that's not the guys you want i may disagree with and i think you can threaten to maintain something that is doing harm i suppose to taking a pound and threatening to maintain something that is going to do you harm to me would be for the future but he's not maintaining it twitter is maintaining it he just put it out there he's made the announcement he can take it down here yes and he did for money he said you'll have a sweet treat for me that will tweet yes you can win in other words i will maintain it unless you do what i say i think i think i think we're on the right side of the line but it seems like i'm at the end and way over i'm not getting traction but