want understand what the words what you say the words mean and and there seems to be some ambiguity between those two positions your yes your i'll try to respond to that which is yes and from that you then you then get your room yes but there is no cross reference to chapter seventy three in the criminal code is the so it's fairly straightforward really and i i do want it to turn a little bit and next issue that arises before you turn to that what why do we if it if it incorporates the chapter you see what about what about the phrase gets me there on ambiguously right so your point is that this phrase is unambiguous lee clear that it incorporates the federal provision but it's also an ambiguously clear that it's not just the federal provisions it's also some subset of the state provisions me i'm just having trouble understanding the sort of the the steps that you're taking to show the unambiguous clarity on your honor i think that going to direct me to chapter seventy three and a crimes listed there is it's not all that complicated they're all acts about interfering with the official proceedings and the processes of justice and so capturing those about chapter seventy three dollars offenses include pettibone from eight hundred and ninety three arthur andersen united states versus aguilar and all of these rejected government attempts to assign obstruction liability for conduct that could interfere in this court in the case called united states person young in two thousand and nineteen so it has meaning and it is that standard with teeth young was a case where the government's on position was rejected and that and so we know the standard means something maybe you just do it on rebuttal i'm just i'm just i mean i look at it a number of the offenses into the section you're looking at assuming we get to that section and they talk about you know going to law enforcement in the the federal chapter and i find it hard to see why each of those offenses requires the existence of an ongoing proceeding as a as a necessary pr intention frustrating law enforcement and i want to point out another problem with the ending there which is where the government is going in this case and i just want to underscore that it's that really when you have a toothless standard for reasonably foreseeable we're back where we were in government can proceed with this sort of meaningless marron else standard that they've advanced year and both be for contrary to law and the constitutional problems here by the way have resolved this case whether it's on the no who are you know or whether we're at chevron step  agree made with the government that the term was ambiguous and that the he had made a reasonable interpretation talk to us about the categorical match with the virginia statute yes your honor there  ask you this i guess i would call it a practical question my guess is in ninety nine percent of all the prosecutions in virginia for this crime the parties in the court use your model jury instructions and those model jury instructions specifically include as a separate element the specific intent provisions from the rand decision so is it your view that all of those juries are improperly instructed your honor possibly but i think there's also some missing facts here about when those instructions went into use how often they're  used and then and then whether really what is well they are they are the model jury instructions and and most of these categorical all modified categorical don't lemme as we're called upon to resolve we are often looking at well what happens in the state courts what does the state supreme court say but what are the jury instructions say so it seems like to me if we were adopt your position we would be holding in effect that a large number of these state prosecutions are simply invalid may i respond you're on an amount of time you know you may you know the ating the state court determination but it seems like it would be at odds with what the state courts do your honor if it isn't for two reasons one that if they're put up next to the supreme court's directs them into the elements  instructions wouldn't control that most importantly that language from brennan box is not a match to any of the proposals from the government here but your act would punish women generally and the government is trying to derive the general generic federal offense to that the story off it's a description of the act it's not an element it's separate from what the generic and needs to match and it's separate in substance you help someone unload a truck get stolen goods you know they stole them you're guilty because you want to help the person who did nothing to do with any kind of receding about justice and obstruction of justice that's all the general required look at elements light on exactly that you know the crimes committed is completed and you know it's been done and you try to help the person who did it that's all would be relevant in considering whether to defer to or it's generic definition so as we argue the rule of money doesn't apply and so we're looking st to see whether the phrase is ambiguous which it is and then because  understood that argument she indicated that the government's position takes obstruction of justice beyond the definition in the written case that it's a broader than that so if you could address prosecution but they are the beginning paragraph to that i think is the answer the judge registrants question the commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements and it li specific content as a element of the crime in the jury instruction set correct that is correct mean i think that there could be a number different if they can be proven that someone added with an intent other then to help the principle of a punishment for instance and read there was evidence that the principal or have a subjective intent and a particular element and really the common problem with the government's arguments on both that it's a defense and generic offense is that they want to write the object out of the grammar here there does need to be particularities you have to