supreme court decided almost two decades ago and in which it held that both the supreme court and congress believed rico should be read broadly to effectuate its purpose there's been no change in the supreme court or congress's evaluation of recall in the ensuing two decades behavior that suffices insofar section a's concern or with regard to section b the trial court mistook my own oral argument for an admission that we could not state a crime under section b unless we had discovery i made so no such representation and in fact this court's decision in schreiber which we refer to in our opening brief page six and which we discussed more thoroughly at tab eight to page one twenty nine in the appendix shows that we have in fact stated a claim under section b and if we have heard in that belief then the court should have permitted us further discussion or permitted to some discovery in order to correct that deficiency is regard to subsection the senior honors there is no reported case either from a circuit court or from a district court which has held that in the situation in which a participating corporation is a part of the entity that the structural composition is two and three in our excerpts of the record because almost immediately after this case was removed to the federal court the district court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause as to why the rico cause of action should not be dismissed that was an action by the court which was not prompted by the cry gave it was a an action which the court took on its own it then required the plaintiffs to complete the form which is it tab three which is the district court's rico standing order which contains twenty questions several of them with multiple parts and follow rule nine with regard to the specifics of the fraud which we were claiming but with regard to the many other allegations that are required in a rico cause of action i believe that no such specificity is required and that rule eight governs with regard to notice i have always had trouble with we can find in the enterprise finding the pattern finding various things in here it's difficult to see what the enterprise is can you elaborate a little bit yes indeed the enterprise consisted of the corporate beacon danced and their principal employees president citibank which is not a defendant which is not alleged to be a wrongdoer but which was part and parcel of the enterprise and we've decided cases w citibank a credit card issuer is an active put instant pawn in the activities of the defendants and therefore is and member on the district court found that those claims should be dismissed because the plaintiff was not injured by reason  of the defendant's investment racketeering in come in for the defendant's acquisition or control of an interest in  involved in it or knowledge that the harm occurs when he when he writes the check that's when he parts with his money that's when he's injured so you're not saying that they wouldn't be liable for  well i don't i don't believe they're liable for fraud and you know even if all the facts were true i don't i don't think in common law fraud someone true he was made an offer he reviewed the offer rejected it and got a feel and then elected to pay the bill wasn't fool you seriously have interest in you get into a fight so it's better to pay the bill and then fight for the credit but it doesn't take away from the fact that your client and in if they have he has alleged that my client was involved in in fraudulent activity that allegation is in there if question is given that allegation we still have to look just records that i i see rule twelve i see the controlling law of the circuit and honors judge henderson did not dismiss any of these courses of action because of a failure of keeping a proximate cause there's nothing in any of his orders or any of the particularities and i refer the court's pacifically to the transcript surprised by the alleys tab six page seventy two lines tend to sixteen your honour's with regard to the heightened reading requirement there is no circuit court anywhere in this country which is ever approved this trial courts stand take judicial notice and the court has taken judicial notice of action is in the state court and we have cited state court appellate decisions which show that insofar as rico