block we'll try to help i understand thank you your honor we believe that the district court erred primarily in two areas st is that the court drew improper inferences from the fact that were submitted with respect to the conspiracy and also that the court improperly infer that there was two separate and distinct conspiracies instead of one overarching conspiracy i'd like to st address the conspiracy to violate rico the the the essential nature and scope of the conspiracy that was all and submitted facts on was to conduct unlawful activities to manipulate the tomato market to realize significant ill gotten gain at the expense of and rico conspiracy the the essential nature and scope was to engage in a variety of illegal activities for the purpose of  manipulating the tomato market to the participants gain and to my clients in europe the methods or tools by which they implemented that  the the goal was to control the market and to him and to harm our my clients how many long before they entered into their own called the price fixing conspiracy to the bribery by s k products turner ok s k had been engaged in bribery i believe for approximately ten to thirteen years and the important fact for the court to appreciate had been ongoing does not reflect that it cannot be a tool utilized by the illegal enterprise to further their the the seat ted that's calgarians medo export group conspiracy that the purpose was they needed to obtain sufficient market power to overcome the market power that scott sawyer and escape the ad been bribing customers he approached the person mr ray hall who was doing the work said i know you have been br yes your honor to the end the issue is mr sawyer when he joined the conspiracy knew that he only wanted to part would gain advantage through the  domestic aspect of it miss the defendants wanted to obtain the benefit from the foreign products mr sawyer would not have stayed in the conspiracy if they had not engaged in the price fixing market exclusion and rigging and where you see the bid rigging and market exclusion being critical if that ha not happened the the defendants would not have gained seven million five hundred thousand dollars of profit during the years two thousand and six through two thousand and eight through the export market mr sawyer and the entree to that market would have gone but what of the direct involvement by the defendants in the bribery was salty or was bribing for example kraft foods and the evidence was submitted that mr sawyer asked and the defendants agree to submit a false bid to do freedom let a in or scares me to craft in order to bolster is bribed prices to make that bribe price look legitimate and then the defendants did do that as there any evidence that any of the brad money result of mr sawyer participating in the overall conspiracy yes because the bribery was a part of the conspiracy that was engaged by s goods to control the market to exclude morningstar and he would not have participated in the conspiracy absent that involvement and it was only through is involvement in the conspiracy and  clients and he indicate he created a matrix where there was an agreement to divide the market amongst them it included the bribe victims it also included wo bribery in those manners and the benefit to the conspiracy and specifically to los gatos it was seven million five hundred thousand dollars that it otherwise would not have  from the international sales which los gatos would not have enjoyed if mr sawyer did not remain as the main component of the conspiracy and is involved in the conspiracy included the bribery which was known to mr wolf and we submitted evidence of that and whether or not he benefited from the bribery he did benefit to the extent that they never would have had those sales but for mr sawyer's involvement in sawyer would not have been all unless the other coconspirator s agreed to go along with is the mastic schemes which included the bribery now i see i reserve five minutes and i'm addressing your  reserve five or down to the three well let's let's get let's get back five and then you make sure we knew you had a chance to see everything you need to say thank you your hon stewart will participate in the bribery or greed participate in the bribery they have to conflate the two conspiracy price fixing conspiracy and the bribery conspiracy and they want the court to address address the idea that there is one conspiracy and that for some reason that's an issue of fact that a court can not decide as a matter of summary judgment even if there's no evidence when the exact argument but one conspiracy argument was made fixing and market allocation like here but there was also a conspiracy involving predatory pricing a predatory pricing conspiracy was the only conspiracy that could have harmed players who like morningstar here contours of the asserted conspiracy whether as one conspiracy or several respondents must show that the conspiracy caused them an injury or with the end in trust laws provide relief that showing depends in turn the raid side whether we're defining a conspiracy or not i'm talking just be honest certainly the benefit to escape routes from its own bribery conspiracy they receive the benefits from my speaking contracts away capers got the contracts it got through the bribery well scott is did not receive any monies from those contracts in benefit from those contracts didn't get any business at all from the bribes customers with respect to sort of analyzing the whether these conspiracies related whether there's one conspiracy it's not it's not of asked it's one of the analysis that the court back in the court doesn't approach this case and that was what is all the evidence of these conspiracies and are they related rather it is relevant for determining the central issue for liability in the case which is it was god knows agreed to participate in a conspiracy involving bribery did los gatos understand that it was agree only judge miller indicated in her order that had been asked that testimony from randy ray hall could imply awareness of this awareness of bribery but but the howard fast is a two prong test it's awareness an intention to participate the only evidence in the record the only evidence that we reproduced in our breeze in toto in total that associates the word bribery with los is that one page of testimony from randy radio and that testimony just taken on its face says that morning stars owner chris roofer said something to  i don't think so your honor i don't think if if if if if you just look at the rico conspiracy crime what's required is that the most out of us was aware of the essential nature and scope of infer in a civil case that they were part of a conspiracy so to benefit from that my read i i don't i don't think so your honor because i think you're still missing the prong of intended to participate in the  the argument that i understand when you start making here is that by scott sal you're saying in c tag eventual e los gatos was going to have profits from the export market a perfectly a perfectly legal activity that was being done by a seat through the congress to the calmest are massing fairly speculative the the only evidence again connecting with mr wall to the word bribery was this april twenty two thousand be no liability in any for us with respect to the rico conspiracy claim the motives that judge mueller went through an analysis again and what is what is morningstar standing to proceed on rebut conspiracy claim if it's evidence is only regarding activities that did not harm it does mueller sided on of the case and other cases for the proposition that equate to doesn't have standing to proceed under a ripple conspiracy if it has not been harmed by the activity id activity and so in this case the court found that the only activity here that could a farmer morningstar was the bribery and she therefore set out to deal with the foulest whether or not there was any evidence that the lookout for bribery was aware of its scope and intended to participate ghettoes in the fact that they knew that as part of the illegal activities of c t a they were engaged in a market allocation agreeing not to compete with each other for various customers and that included the bribery customers it benefited los gatos because los gatos was asked as part of the broader conspiracy to to submit false bits to craft which were which is another predicate act of mail fraud and and we also have evidence that but for this not being agreement that the that mr sawyer who was doubt because he had ill motive against my client gatos did receive was that the briberies was a component of the conspiracy and the conspiracy to engage in a variety of illegal activities thousand dollars in any way come from the robbery i know that i don't understand if the if it doesn't come directly from the bribery but it comes from the conspiracy and the bribery is just a tool of the conspiracy that is the that whether it's one or two and like the supreme court in roswell russ russell leni indicated that when there is a question whether or not there is two separate briberies which your question in plies is a separate price illegal price fixing and a bribery as two dollars separate briberies that is a question for the jury to that just like in christiansen each participant did not need to know what exact illegal activities they were doing but the benefit and christianson it was even a broader description of what the essential nature was it was to engage in a variety of illegal activities to become profitable and in christianson it clearly said each participant did not need to know what the our other participant was doing and so the the the mere question of how did they benefit directly from the bribery begs the central question which is a question of fact for the jury to determine whether or not it was one overarching conspiracy or two separate independent