profiting as is the case in the usual rico case where i'm a corporation is being used as the enterprise this result for the corporation and so i am really hung up in saying  right benefits already get the money the money they got the money because they were doing a good job for the corporation and the corporation was making money and it was paying these people more money consumers have to do is to set up their operation in the mode of a corporation the spinal the rules of accounting even though they are violating the law even though they are which they can pull out in the form of wages which they can prove in the form of the ministers and other compensation and that would mean all of them state let me tell you another hurdle that i have maybe you can my difficulty is that it seems to me that under your theory every wage in our claim is a rico crime and here to the extent that there is a fraud that might be  actionable seems to me that that is not tied into the males or females or a consequence perhaps but that's not part of the fraud would you address that and other cases that relate to  and the other issue which is one of the let's see that that's the question it's not of course they use the mails or the wires you know there was a direct transfer you know and i hardly know anyone other than the federal government that goes around and hands they do the difficulty i have this at the fraud to the extent that they are doing the calculations and telling the employees brief well i i quite agree with you in the sense that not every violation of law assuming there was a violation of law in this instance with respect to the overtime laws and that remains to be determined in the state underpaid its workers below the prevailing wage rates but having represented to the state that it was paying at the prevailing wage rates in other words it said it was nine twenty an hour when in fact it was paying seven twenty  entitled to overtime pay and your hypothetical of the independent contractor seems to me that is exactly what i was speaking of a misrepresentation of his legal status not a representation as to keep it alive under these circumstances and rico claim that it is as i said entirely dependent on the outcome of the state law proceeding that's going on quite apart from whatever would go on in the in the federal submitted in seven days ending the submission of an additional doesn't know the client's name but the wife he calls the prosecutor and then comes up with a novel argument that well this was a declaration against who the letter is because everyone knows that what you tell your lawyer crime to someone who was likely to report him to the police and send him a prison seems to me that the difficulty is that we don't we haven't really had something in this context that's a private to an think it wouldn't have been able to come in the judge explains that to the jury so when it's such a bizarre circumstance it seemed to me that what we're left with is really trying to figure out take lilly as a and the four justices that you nicely laid out in your brief was it on reasonable for the california courts to say that this was trustworthy and while we all know that sometimes defendants  one hundred percent reliable with what they are attorneys you have a sort of an unusual situation here as you know with a civil attorney interviewing the client in a certain way and you have a series of events that go on and the court looks at those and said given that and then given that he says look i'm not going to testify believe me i before i testify or something to that effect which he did they made a judgment that it was was more than most coconspirator statements that this would be trustworthy well i mean look at the content of the statement i mean first of all the reason for trustworthiness is that is that you don't say something unless it's good morning your honor scott's healer deputy attorney general for the respond in this case you know we've had five different courts who have looked at this issue five different courts who have her view the statements under very clear cut precedent the issue is whether there were  particularly particularized guarantees of trustworthiness in this case and five different courts under that very clear standard who have decided yes and that all of these now this court under similar circumstances and i s persuasive the circumstances in this case found the statements such as this come in both of whom said in a private setting which seems to be the problem that counsel has with this but it's a private setting so it shouldn't really meet the declaration against interest of course we would we would say that's only for justice but i think in the early they suggested that you could not use other evidence that was admitted in order to corroborate a statement that the statement and the circumstances of the giving of the statement has to stand on its own so obviously we would think that it's corroborated but you don't that but if you look at the statement and lo it was a statement here there is opposite extremes i mean he's living you have somebody who's completely minimizing shifting the blame saying well i was only involved this feeling here i was drunk the police were interrogating him late at night he was seen it was his brother it was the other friend george taylor basically said to his lawyer first i wasn't there and then the lawyer said is reliable and what's not reliable well first of all five of the courts didn't have any coming to that conclusion i think when you look at the circumstances and in the case of the boys the case of the boys emphasize circumstances he walked in immediately doesn't know this guy and says i smoked up with these guys and i was in the orange grove the attorney says that's not going to fly when he goes into this long description of what actually happened and i think when you look that when you read that transcript when you look at those circumstances you say yeah that's what happened of course that's what happened in the scribes details like how we got it and how we went over their case complete credit for everything that he did and  in one of those cases i think it was boone it's a girlfriend so i don't really see that there is much of a distinction between a private setting to a close friend or to a girlfriend or to an attorney because essentially what you're saying is you're telling them under circumstances that you're hoping it's not going to be repeated and certainly this court doesn't have to reach that declaration against interest issue because we're here on the federal constitutional issue of whether there's going to survive billing and five other courts have said if you look at this statement and all the surrounding circumstances you have to come to a conclusion that this is here in terms of reliability and really statements were way over here and everything that lee talked about in terms of blame shifting minimizing in terms of what this court this which i think is a great