your honor please proceed i'm a crank you more than and more than a decade after the underlying events this case was remanded to the f c c to determine the impact of the supreme court's decision in co cash on the lifetime bar imposed on mr john including deterrence applying both these principals a lifetime bar imposed on mr saad is clearly punitive mr sod's lifetime bar is intended to address a public wrong his former employer and mutual fire him long ago a primary reason for mr sod's lifetime punishment nevertheless on remand the i c c ruled that concussion has no bearing no bearing on its determination that mr sod's lifetime bar is remedial not punitive this is error and should be reversed missile being let me ask you a question let me ask you to react to how i see this case and you tell me if it's not right and what i'm wondering well is whether this isn't just a typical situation we see from time to time which is when is our case law that it's a case of the d c circuit  affected or changed by a later supreme court decision and here's what i mean by that before co catch before the supreme court decided a case beginning in johnson which the support which the two the statute issue and other provisions like constitutional cases and security choices and in other cases tell me what income catch requires us to abandon that subject to twenty four or sixty two imitations it limited the case then whether it's done for punitive purposes including deterrence and none of that rises and falls on the statutory language of two thousand six hundred and forty two and it's quite clear that the court could have crafted this in a in a more narrow way and it didn't and i would look to cook ashes own statement of its holding cook has tells us that discordant bears all the harm the hallmarks of the penalty it's imposed as a consequence of violin the public law and it's looking at it and at a whole different line of law so doesn't that really tell us that the question hospices not apply to the interpretation of excess of our press and i mean respect respectfully i would disagree after co cash decided eight to one with the eight having been in the majority of coke blue favorably invokes and refers to but cook ashes own announcement of what is a penalty what is a for appropriate rules that you know the perfect or rules that would provide for appropriate discipline including permanent bars including permanent bars and it refers very much to protecting investors and the public so it's hard to see how one could square the mandate of congress in the exchange act with his limiting principles which say no don't look at the public look only a and then the statute that gives the f c c supervisory authority to ensure that whatever finra imposes is not excessive or oppressive though those are compatible with the ruling in ca cash the definitions the principles that are laid out defining line quotation from the right case in one thousand nine hundred and forty that that overlaid added an additional requirement under excessive impressive it interpreted that as not requiring a remedial sanction that's nowhere in the statutes and that is that is not consistent with compassion because coco shows defined what is remediate what is a remedial sanction and what is a punitive sanction that was the key issue that was presented in co cash and then announced a definition in princip  applying a bar to prevent a deceptive securities professional from jeopardizing the public going forward well well you surely that's you know not everything congress was thinking about and it's not the typical case that the commission or then and right is using them are for so you would you would point to that be intended to address a public wrong and may be done for punitive purposes including deterrence as we see the lifetime bar that was imposed on mr saad here and that's permissible under the statute as you see by congress  this this court had imposed a additional obligation that's not present in the statutory language and said that if it in rybar that's upheld by the i c c must be remedial must be removed or sanction welcome has taught or oppressive and in fact we see congress in its language intending to require proportionality for american impose a censure a fine a suspension as long as it's fitting the word fitting is in that obligation and as you see need to determine whether it's excessive inside one the panel noted that the commission imposed the punishment as a deterrent to others in sat two they said the bar was appropriate because it serves important deterrent objectives and read self refers to deterrence in its rulings below and and so under co cached if a penalty is a remedial sanction it must be exclusively remedial but if it's if it has mixed reasons but at least some of them are punitive court is quite clear in co cash that it qualifies as a punitive sanction and of course that was circuit precedent which enables consideration of various purposes including general turnt deterrence can be considered as part of the broader remedial increase but even under cold cash that's a point to judge table as making was taken into account as part of the mix if it can fairly be explained and justified as the commission did here in its only order under review then it would not be a problem even under coercion in we're not allowed to consider the other instances where the commission explained that this is a deterrent so we would make two points as to that your honor the st is that as this court established in the course of decisions that were pas one through pas to the question is whether the order that the commission that is under review here meets the standards to be a sustainable order and reasonably explained and justified and that's true under the ministry of law principle so the statutory standard that the commission is charged with applying is a question of whether the remedy is you know is justified with regard to the public interest the protection of investors and it's essentially under the circuit precedent is necessary or appropriate to that and so that's the st point we would say the nd point that we would point out is that most of the references that have been made as i saw them in the briefs for example by assad to  stray mentions of potential deterrence in prior pinions are mentions that are either taking the legal position that deterrence can be considered under the circuit precedent which was of course even before co cash  it could be considered and others were things that were more in the nature of describing deterrence as an incidental effect not the primary purpose which co cash itself recognizes is not problematic we have you know cited in our brie wouldn't be problematic it's also the case that the core analysis that was made at all stages but clearly in this commission's opinion which expressly states that it was justifying without invoking deterrence as a justification  analysis has been preventive in nature and that preventive analysis is one that is long standing as recognized as appropriate is a remedial not something that you can post in twenty four sixty two dollars cases decisions like the rd circuit's ungenteel have found to be an appropriate standard ungenteel actually referenced the analysis here the preventive analysis from sod in expressly endorsing that sort of goal of trying to prevent an individual who has taken money lied about it we look at that day no but that's a purely legal question yes to that question your honor i thought you were saying otherwise in your brief you know what to clarify on or the position we're taking in our brief is that whether  cash applies is in part determined by the question of what the statute actually requires in this case to whether the coca should be expanded or should be understood or read to apply in this context has to be informed by the nature of what  that's to be distinguished from penalty even though it's not remedial in the sense of responding to control just how we map out i mean i understand that you know understand your question but if your question is about how how this standard operates under under the existing statute and under the existing circuit precedent or is the question about under co cash what co cashes  punitive so we're not calling for this court to change circuit precedent we actually think that the way that the circuit precedent has evolved is derived from as as described i think it's agreed upon for example by all the opinions inside too that it derives from some early cases in which the determination was made that this was a remedial statute that this was these are remedies that are remedial and not penalties because they are justified by means of as a means of protecting investors if necessary or appropriate to that end that's the standard that's described in right all the way back and mccarthy and then in this court's precedent i believe it's and it could be pods one or close to i think it's  so given that there is that standard and the question is about this protection of investors in the public interest which are directly hawked untethered language in the statute we don't believe that this court needs to look beyond  to coaches analysis which was clearly cabined by coach's own terms as lou confirms to import or shoehorn that analysis into something that simply used some similar language we think there's already a well established standard has been justified in that language that comes from the statute that is focused on protecting investors in the public interest so it's completely at odds with that to import a standard that for example keys itself off of whether or at least in sod's reading of a key is itself off of whether something is directed at the public interest for example that's exactly endorsed consideration and endorsed justification under the statute that something that is directly at odds with something that would suggest that that deprives deprives this court doesn't take the opportunity to correct at least acknowledge and reverse the f c c in its application interpretation of coke ash we're going to be left with a situation where the court has the supreme court has to find a remedial sanction to find a punitive sanction in a very says st and principal that way but yet the circuit continues to force parties and and the government agents used to use the label of remedial sanction in a way that is inconsistent with the definitions in co cash and this appears to be an opportunity to prevent that ongoing situation thank you thank you thank you the case