must my question to you mr fix the statue out in terms of what i think is generically of the issues that we confront here is how do you how does your position supposing there was mail fraud which i'm sure the way the mail for of act is interpreted that it can be extended to a normal illegal gambling since telephones are used and there may be notifications and cross communications through the use of the united states mail so that you don't really need the fraudulent credit card to get  recall violation into a gambling operation so why should i and basically what you're saying in your case is that the recall violation both standing to the plaint was credit card it if there is a mail fraud foliation on the part of the gambling proprietor without the credit card being involved then the credit card being  she mail fraud so the fact that you have a credit card involved it was it was super a big factor well because it is it's after all the credit card honors an illegal bargain it could have a credit card contract saying that it can't charge back to its customers but either way the credit card is not the rich in here it's the mail for mail fraud is the linch we're relying was fraudulent credit cards so it's not at the direct injury here is not by the wife she is not the one who is directly those two of all cost purchasers of cigarettes without paying taxes to the city of new york and since that transmission must be paid customers made those purchases and cheated on their taxes because they had an independent price of duty to pay their taxes so there was an attempt by the city of new york to get its taxes back from  mexico who didn't mind really any taxation laws but only in the rule that he was supposed to transmit the names of the customers in that particular case the court the supreme court united elations of ten the five violations of the security act fraudulent promotions of securities that were led to the breakdown of a customer of a broker dealer for they sold those stocks at the manipulate price the broker dealers those broker dealers in turn so the stocks to their customers and when the when the manipulation was discovered the broker dealers th off they had to make good that their customers who all we had purchased a stack and they were only able to do that and as a result the broker dealers went bankrupt they were in soft and that's some money to to make claims of the customers the broker dealer was all cases to let's get them all out here he cause i think you have to overcome all of them because you're all from the supreme court albeit the based on a recall violation when you are not the direct victim because it's the government that is the direct victim but a consequential victim and the supreme court said we're not extending rico customers who didn't purchase the manipulated stock that's the people who they purported to represent dimples not the people who purchased the minute related stack on the property list but the other customers who lost their money because the broker dealer statues and other things that they said you don't even have the right to do this but those folks were not harmed by reason of the rico violation they were harmed because their broker dealer went down the tubes and couldn't pay their points that is very different from what you have here that's not just the suit or characterize the problem and that's not how it's been interested in enough and s defendant cited on this point is as the fourth point out in fall competitors saying you by virtue of not paying your taxes the state of illinois you've been able to undercut our price and therefore we only in the hands of the case it's even more so the story there's no question it's your relating to a standing should i'm not putting you in terms of standing i'm putting it in terms of the supreme court's analysis of proximate cause as a matter of fact there is a standing question because i'm not sure and no one has persuaded me as of yet but the fact that the rights to the marriage to a state that there are vested rights standing but there was no proximate cause but but but you're talking about there are two competitors and a competitive injury we're not talking about competitive injury we're talking about injury to under the under the terms of the complaint the property  to collect it and execute on it and there's no money because he gambled it all away would you be able to use recall to go against the gambling house for letting him gamble is going to focus on the property here whose was it and and and what the defendants did to harm my client what they did to harm my client was no different then then if they had taken  up directly a piece of her property and used it illegally if that's exactly what they did they took her property not that it was common property by statute it invested in it as a common interest and they took that those you'd be perfectly right if it weren't for four decisions by the supreme court that says you rock well yes but i think every one of those decisions i think every one of those decisions deals with a factual circumstance that's very different than ours homes in the han note all deal with circumstances that are waiting far less direct and what we're dealing with here and what we're dealing with here is a it is an order maybe to the difference in the interest that were were being talked about there you have a common he lost to just an accomplice saying that day he the credit card showed that this is the money that was spent therefore he played the gambling machines stare for he lost clearly to the gambling factor which also shows you why i was careful not to let you call it a property right in the in the marital estate because he c vendor risk before homey dissipative he could have taken one of those millionaires trips trips to the uk to the space station for twenty two dollars and the government would entitled to collect it but the course of the trial judge would call it at this a patient of assets but it's not her asset that he does the well and all these things if you're talking about all the speculation about difficulties in that type of case was how do you prove what was really really positive connected by the rico violations post something else and i agree that that there is some speculation that that is permitted there but here we have than an illegitimate purpose given what mike what my client's husband would say about his gambling activities why don't i give you thirty seconds to wrap up because unfortunately we have to keep in mind in thirty seconds what i would say i that the issue of proximate cause was it is it is a factual issue that i think what evidence is the discussion here is has been fleshed out factually but that's why you you have a trial that's why you have a proceeding there are sufficient allegations in the complaint right now to show that but for what the defendant's head there would not have been fraudulent credit card billings it would not have been a diminishment of the party so that from from our perspective we've met the pleading requirements which is what the issue here is for a rico violation the factual circumstances of this case and it was fair for the court to dismiss that complaint with rogers thank you injured party does not give you the right to sue a rico there has to be a direct causal connection to look up proximate cause in this case if she has a cause of action the plaintiff in this case it's against her ex husband that exists is true until trial if it were try the until the evidence comes in because you have to assume the truth of a pleading if you're going to entertain  if you take that logic into rico every day every person should say god every person has an alcoholic thank you to the manufacturer of whiskey because he drinks too much jim beam because shrinking too much and state of eleanor like he went out and smashed the car could sue the car dealer i don't think so not on the recall and i don't think there's any direct causal connection in this case to suit each defendants under the home sent him to case i think that's the problem with the place i