communication need not itself contain a misrepresentation, Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 712-15, 109 S.Ct. 1443, 103 L.Ed.2d 734 (1989), it must be “incidental to an essential part of the scheme.” Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954). The district court found, and we agree, that Kaye has not alleged a situation in which anyone was misled or fraudulently induced to engage in activity to their detriment. Although Kaye’s allegations, if true, may amount to questionable conduct on the part of Defendants, “[n]ot all conduct that strikes a court as sharp dealing or unethical conduct is a ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ ” as those terms are used in the mail and wire fraud statutes. Reynolds v. East Dyer Dev., 882 F.2d 1249, 1252 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Kaye’s allegation of wire fraud is supported
holding that a buyer could not rely on a sellers mere expression of opinion holding that sellers failure to disclose known soil conditions was not a scheme to defraud where seller did not affirmatively lie to buyer holding that failure to disclose that the defendant was involved on both the sellers and buyers side of transactions constitutes a concealment of a material fact sufficient to support a charge of fraud holding that the prosecution must disclose to the defense all exculpatory evidence known to the state or in its possession holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation