a's two licenses under the commodity futures act based on what the commission believed was perjured testimony by mr bryant in an unrelated state court child support proceeding and a non judicial membership organization of the national futures association which enforces a number of the see if he sees rules and regulations reviewed portions of testimony from the two days during determine that mr bronte had lied under oath complaint by some trading violation by some breach of the act but rather by the other party in the state custody court state support proceedings the individual with whom this was brought it had a relationship some fifteen years before and that's one of the reasons why none of the as we've argued for a number of reasons none of the traditional safeguards one would have with respect to that determination were present it was in an expedited proceeding as to which the defenses w including convictions for felonies misdemeanors it's a specific only denominated what they were and then of putting and other good cause it's our position that what the commission has done with respect to the other good cause runs agency to is not applicable here for a number of reasons first of all unlike chevron the interpretation here was never subject to the typical notice income and it didn't go through th every time it has been interpreted by a c f t c until this very case when they have come in with other good cause has been predicated on either a specific finding and determination by a judicial body or a specific finding and determination in another administrative body that is then carried over you don't have that here what happened here is that to the thrust of the positions that we've taken here and i think i've indicated why we don't believe that chevron applies and that you should look at it in terms of the need and the other line of cases and in doing so  respect is awarded an agency where it's appropriate we think given all the circumstances here they're not entitled to that respect i've already talked generally about the congressional intent we indicated in our brief exactly what we think congress i'm not good at the latin but the exclusion of of one thing or the expression of one thing is the inclusion of the others and here when you look at the legislative history that we've quoted and everything was specific language as to what congress intended on the statutory disqualifications and that has significance here because i think what that means when you look at the entire scope of of the section other good cause really should not be interpreted outside the context in which congress commission is interpreted in this paragraph to authorize it to affect the registration of any person if as a result of any act or pattern of conduct attributable to that person will never been the subject of any formal proceeding bunting been prosecuted by the district let me let me finish ok that is to say you used to be generous argument and doesn't say that the list and offenses are all with respect to finance just some of them are with respect to other behavior unrelated to the actual conduct lessness yes they are ok and there we go that's correct and you know we were i wouldn't be here today in for example the district attorney who sat through these support proceedings had determined that mr brown thing was untruthful and i brought a perjury prosecution in marin county and bundy had been convicted by a jury in the perjury prosecution obviously then that would put right within one of the statutory disqualifications conviction of a felony that this type of proceeding undoubtedly would have been appropriate and what so the question then is not that this behavior is not sanction of all and this behavior then is not something that will allow him to be disqualified you're just when you know upon whether we have a criminal conviction of the behavior of the distinct i'm not disputing that this type of  conduct has had it been determined as it otherwise would have been and determined in the criminal context certainly would have been a basis for revocation of the two license of article three authority the determination of lying under oath really a perjury determination is a judicial function now we have three nine why are members of the n s a undertaking on their why he should not be found with committed perjury well let me answer that in two ways first of all the limited nature of the defense the charge was that mr bradley had lied under oath the charge changed during the course of the proceedings but be that as it may which dispute that he didn't have an opportunity to respond he did in fact respond and explain but but we did so in the context of mitigating factors which the commission's rules recognize can be a part of the proceeding but then what happened with respect to the mitigating and the medication related to mr grant his physical or mental condition at the time i think the record is very clear that  had just come out of the hospital at the time of the april ninety nine hearings having had a serious blood disorder as a result of some of the treatments in the test that had gone on for prostate cancer he subsequently was undergoing treatment out of the country for a period of time all of those events that we did bring forth and his lawyers comment that he was under medication at the time of the hearing that he had difficulty communicating with him that sometimes he was out of it together with mr grant's explanation and consistent no i believe those answers to be true at the time i made them in the april hearing all of that we did have an opportunity to present that what happened though is and if you look can say i didn't do it or here's an explanation as to why my answers were truthful or here's an explanation that it is my lawyer said i wasn't entirely with that on that particular day be countenanced i see my time is running let me just close briefly we have a lot of materials we've submitted including those transcripts but basically mr grant is registration is shut down because of this particular event the irony of the entire thing is that the city f t c does so despite undisputed evidence that mr bryant his actions in the course of his registrations and he's been in the business for twenty seven years had not harmed a single customer there had been one customer complaint which he personally satisfied not in his own hands throughout the entire point of his registration he was in com demonstrated an ability and desire to act in accordance with principles of trade he made every effort to deal with this client's and when the enter when the anything came yeah two hundred three audit as a result of mr winters he gets barred from the industry that not only substantially impacts mr prantera and his livelihood but if the commission is able to stand on it's interpretive guidelines and that guideline is approve impassioned but it impacts virtually every registrar because under the commission's theory they can and as in this case police any particular statement if they don't like those statements they can use those statements to revoke licenses for dishonesty or anything else they may choose to add to their interpretation and accordingly we think the order should be reversed and mr brown his licenses should be reinstated save the registration of the person with the commission when there is good cause in this case the national national futures association which is the self regulatory body authorized to perform registration functions on behalf of the commission found after rather bizarre if nobody was injured and that's what the agency's trying to do is protect people from injury yes and that's what i don't get it why they even prostitutes cost much less other cars they raise a presumption that the person should not be registered with the commission and in this case it wasn't just casual comments between a husband and wife it was comments that mr bronte was violating the commodity exchange act and he made them in a forum where he was on notice that you know honesty is paramount like any investigatory agency the n s a you know finds wrongdoing by audits and by complaints from others it can be customers it can be other people in this case he had said he had used customer funds to pay a personal judgment that's a violation of the act he said he was not keeping books and records on his command of the pool that's a violation of the act at this point the n s a with obligated to look into mr brown his activities and find out if the statements were true and when it well he's only been registered with the commission since one thousand nine hundred four and i do not believe that there have been any other complaints with our commission guarding disqualification including other good cars it's part of a greater scheme of the commission were charged with protecting customers protecting the integrity of the futures market and commission can presume that they are not fit to be to be registered so that is the starting point and good cause is an equal factor with the other more explicit factors listed in section protect the markets and to ensure the fitness of registrants so it's inquiry would would be you know guided by that guiding principle as well so you're saying your hypothetical i agree is a which is the offshore permute a fund so in short he found out he had not violated the act in the way that he said he had at the child support and harry has been violating the act at all except for lying about embarrasses them but then when they find out that in fact he was behaving properly with respect to the commission rules nonetheless they don't like to be embarrassed because it is his state's in a court of law something that would in fact the a violation of the of the commission's rules with respect to this financial arrangement there's nothing these proceedings if you if your counterpart is a registered dealer and you think here she is alive send the same note and we'll get him somewhere there must be behavior that should not be monitored by the n s a but this particular behavior should be because because they were statements regarding his work as a commodity trading advisor and pool operator and they were made in a forum decision and my question was really a batting practice but i question is did they be determined that someone who would lie under oath about his activities as a licensed in order to also the evidence that i face of it it showing that those statements were untrue well i'm looking at the order i would like to call your attention to the issue of medication on page eighteen of anatase order they discuss he was fully capable of cooperating in the audit in october so they first satchell he rejected mr brown takes mitigation evidence they did go on to say that claimed he had done no wrong doing but they determination either judicial or administrative that wrongful conduct had occurred they all are prior adjudication situations this is the first time the commission has come in and utilize this