know that arjun an argument is simply that there needs to be the instrument because if the core of the crime is written it read in commercial law that the instrument in question needs to be capable of actually in some sort of fraud that you know several other federal statutes criminalizing forgery that did not include an intent to defraud and so the court said in bob and i quote we agree with the government the congress this choice of the word related to was intended to have please the court and christine agree on behalf of the united states attorney general the court should hold the petitioners conviction for first degree forgery under georgia law is an aggravated felony because it relates to forgery for two reasons first where the court was interpretating the federal statute and what a certain federal criminal statute would include but the decision is not as clear as to scorecard let's deal with what the mature yes moral in its decision the majority goes through all of the different arguments for what didn't did not constitute common law forgery demonstrating that it wasn't has not been superseded however gilbert was not interpreting the ira and forgery was added to the eye in a in one thousand nine hundred six and at that point congress decided not to include a cross reference to the federal forgery definition implicitly suggests to you the stronger path you would have been pursuing i got quick sure why you didn't take up that question in that fashion isn't that your stronger argument isn't that  and we do think we do argue that under flores and relating to our floor and his interpretation of relating to his including a logical connection to the federal or to forgery  that a document cannot be trusted or relied upon and that is exactly what even if agency endorsements are included under the georgia law that what would be the situation there you cannot petitioner stated this is not about a common law herrick common sense conception of forgery it's what is legal for a jury and what is the purpose of forward in the core criminal conduct and under is that the thrust of your argument yes because use of the fault name it depends if it's tied to a document then that would be forgery but just using a false name wouldn't necessarily be forgery there's a document that must be part of nothing even in the model penal code the commentary discusses that exact issue it's all about the integrity of documents and whether we can trust documents i wonder if there's a i think ultimately it ends up being a binary choice because the question is whether the georgia statute qualifies or not as forgery and whether false agency endorsements qualify or not our suggestion though is that looking at drake and looking to  more modern conception of forgery at the court did here in drake's would dispense with the issue of agency endorsements and whether they relate or whether there's a logical relation to forgery or to the traditional common law forgery definition because in drake what the court said is where the common law is either where the common law definition is not clear or the modern conception of forgery is different than the common law conception we should look to more modern contemporary definitions of the statute or of forgery and that can be seen in the model that case according to the actually our appellate court decision it did not state what the actual act was it's only in the supplemental appendix for petitioners added on during the reply briefing added an don't necessarily accept that that is a conviction and appellate court decision did not deal with marjorie warren signing her own name it said that she didn't challenge that portion of it so we don't actually know if that is a proper statement of state law but what is in the indictment and indictments are not always the most reliable especially at that they're not always the most reliable appendix the first document and then the second document doesn't actually state whether it was that indictment that she was convicted under and partially plea pled to so we don't actually know if those two are connected and either way those are not publicly available documents and we did not have those at the time of our briefing so we would argue that one case would not be sufficient and additionally t civil case where someone was trying to recover for damages relating to something relating to somebody endorsing and cashing a check when they shouldn't have but no one was actually prosecuted in ted and so we don't know if that's how the forger at the georgia forgery statute would actually be applied in a criminal case this group let me know when they let me come of this from a bit of a somewhat different angle as i read the statute it seems that there were not that purports to have been made by another person at another time different provisions or three by authority of one who did not give such a story but if this is true was it mr williams incomparably charge since he divisible and that's what your question is going to is the divisibility of the statute and we can see that it is not after reading petitioners opening briefs and seeing the statutes they say about charging practices in georgia when our office did this at the great question about whether there's a middle ground between the rich they wish to share about whether we're a binary choice or whether there's some middle ground between the polls and terms of the definition of generally wired a yes rates of this so what the courts have said is that the untruth is in the representation that there is a party to use the instrument for what the for what the person is attempting to use it for the falsity is not in the document itself