are two problems of the government has one there was no proof of the single overarching conspiracy and second to grave statute of limitations album and this is the single conspiracy the first thing that makes this case most unusual is that the government stated in the district court that there were multiple conspiracy since in their first santiago proffer and that is that the second  well i guess the judge found in the rule twenty nine in his rule twenty nine motion in ruling that the proof was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find that there was one conspiracy the judge that's what you need to not folding knowing participants in the charge conspiracy that's the government talk now just for that was the district court's ruling to the district court ruling that a sensible jury could find a long running conspiracy between the defendant and other members of his office friend two different interpreters another person and that some of that conspiracy took place within the five year statute of limitations we cooperation witness who was involved in twenty ten there were forty seven acts that the government says that bring it within the statute of limitations for are the applications for citizenship the facts of the case specified in set out in our brief show that none of those four clients ever discussed citizenship with m employed other people to do it and in fact at least this to one of those clients they told new and different lies which the client said on the witness stand the new lawyer told him to say meeting with her discussing the fraudulent asylum claim discussing what's going on why isn't that enough just to nail this what she can not be a coconspirator i'm not saying she is i'm saying jacob  would have to think that had the government believed truly that he would committed a crime they would have reported him and something would have happened why isn't this though proof that mr di collide is running this fraudulent s part of it gets nailed down within the statute of limitations through the testimony of the cooperating witness but other people are involved too there's the first interpreter is out by two thousand and three but he gets replaced by the second interpreter he's using interpreters three and a half years later judge on the stand that used and the other two can i ask you if you're making a particular argument so you focused a lot on whether the conspiracy as a whole was proven but what i want to know is suppose we thought that there was at least proof of a conspiracy that began i'll say around two thousand eight and extended through the time of the indictment i didn't see you making a separate argument the evidence was introduced that couldn't have been used at the  problem that there was any kind of other issue with the evidence of the earlier applicants that shouldn't have come in you're not you're not making a particular evidentiary argument are you i'm not making a formal for b because they didn't make an application to admit forty four b i would well i'm saying if they didn't if it if the earlier applicants for asylum fraudulent applicants for asylum were part of the charge conspiracy course the l a lot of evidence comes into the trial about them but i didn't see you making any argument that that was separately reversible error well they didn't they didn't rely on for a for  and most of that evidence i understand i'm just saying maybe that evidence would have come in maybe it wouldn't but i didn't see in your brief any argument that even if there is one conspiracy proven we need a new trial for this other reason you didn't say that i didn't say ok to i don't think that you can you can draw from these these facts that there was a single overriding conspiracy the government talks about conspirators moving in and out well at least the hub that's what it does make this a little different from a lot of problems folks he's involved with everything whether there's a rhythm around the some folks may not and if you drive this we'll metaphor into the ground that that's another thing but he is involved with each of these people no question but all the hub and spoke conspiracy say that those people that form the spoke must know over each other when they're the ones being indicted of course because if they don't if it if if they don't know they're part of the this on the ground that the conspiracy was between the defendant and the other participants in his office not between the defendant and the aliens but the only two people in his office were the two lawyers that were involved in two thousand and ten and two thousand and eleven in one of them and with regard to the affidavit it was never used at all it said was that this fella knew when she came into the country and they put a on the stand never ask him about the affidavit itself never showed him the piece of paper but say in their brief before this court that somebody forged his signature that the the two interpreters two two from two thousand to two thousand and three and the second to the interpreter in two thousand six and nine i believe benjamin benjamin so there's no continuity there the government says he tried he had over two to three thousand of these applications and they choose these and try to make it a long running conspiracy all the cases that they cite the facts are very different this case is precisely like already are as precisely like bernard and not like huddle or orlando or the other cases which the government cite those were shorter periods of time with fewer number of people and all of them not all of them but most of them knew each other one where the other this is very different from all innocent ship as opposed to their rights to see permanent residency and did they ever agree with the clients at any point to assist them in obtaining citizenship the answer to that is no but it's legally irrelevant conspiracy law well established in the circuit requires only that those overt acts be foreseeable reasonably to the defendant and be in furtherance of the conspiracy asylum is not a permanent benefit it can be revoked at any time even if it's indefinite while those conditions exist in the country every single one of the defendants clients that the jury heard about in this case who were granted asylum went the step further to apply either for legal permanent residency or and or citizenship there wasn't a single one who was granted asylum in this case they did not do that exhibit thirty six  no conversations that the jury heard about that involved the defendant in which he discussed citizenship explicitly with these clients however asylum again is not permanent the entire point of it is to allow somebody to stay in the united states permanently well or you're saying as long as necessary but the government's theory has to be that succeeding in obtaining asylum for someone gets gets the first brick in the wall built essentially and that that's that was the prerequisite toward more permanent rights to stay in the country whether they're becoming a legal permanent resident whether it's becoming a citizen i which i think th that's a fair representation and that's reflected in the letters that the defendant did send to his clients that advised them that after a year had passed between their asylum approval from their asylum approval that they could go forward and apply for legal permanent residency the defendant did represent some clients in derivative applications for family members which they were able to do after they had obtained some sort of permanent status elements so manas and in example of that where the defendant was hired later to file an application on behalf of mr salmond son so there was continued representation in some of these cases it's worth noting as i think judge would point it out that they are the overt acts in this case that fall within the statute of limitations are not limited to the citizenship applications there are overt acts including recordings that happened in two thousand and ten in two thousand and eleven involving the cooperate or  reopening case there's also this silent interview that happened in the hall all the calls case and false or assistance that was given by one of the translators in that case all of which were part of this broader conspiracy that involved not only the clients but other participants that the defendant chose to help assist in this wide ranging conspiracy trav if you had not had that evident so i think i would be having much more trouble with this case because the citizenship application struck me is actually quite remote too i can appreciate that your honor but the recordings are very good in terms of allen tash was ration which is the letterhead on which this this affidavit was placed there was an envelope that was introduced at trial that showed that it was mailed after that point to the client to facilitate her renewed asylum application we have preparation meetings between her and allen jake up right before she was about to go into her immigration court hearing all of those are overt acts in the shows and that was  with his associate attorneys to facilitate this broader conspiracy that wasn't limited to the individual client it is it's what about prejudice from all of this evidence that so far outside statut tenth of the government just didn't know this was happening or over a period of time the fact of the matter is that the trial evidence showed a pattern that remained consistent for many many years these apply not psych a tiny percentage of his clients if he was serving thousands of people and that is certainly not something that the jury heard the defense defense attorney cites that that's not from the trial record there was litigation before trial about whether the defense could introduce evidence of all of his  applications including ones that he said was not were not fraudulent they just court properly rejected that argument holding that just because he had lawful acts doesn't mean that these applications were unlawful there is a summary charge introduced at trial which is in the record as an attachment to docket number two sixty seven i think it's two sixty seven dash fourteen it outlines all of the overt acts in this case by client excluding the cooperate or  oh and it's helpful in so far as you'll see that the only ear between two thousand and two thousand and eleven in which there was not an over act was two thousand and seven that includes the applications for permanent residency and for citizenship but it was  a conspiracy that was having a lot of actions even if those silent applications were clustered in time some of the reason for that is is just because of the long ranging nature of the conspiracy because it lasted for so long and only ten clients testified there were clusters in time some of the clients and reach other family members refer each other to the defendant and so that happened closer in time and in some cases it might but it didn't indicate that there was any withdraw from the conspiracy same procedures were followed especially with respect to the translators in each of these cases indicating that there was at least an implicit agreement to cooperate beyond that individual case you know  involved in the conspiracy he is recorded meeting with refuted in preparation for her asylum hearing their recorded conversations include them laughing about what happened at the two thousand and five or probably two thousand and five immigration hearing where it had turned out that the defendant submitted both her real and her fake fur certificate from iraq one had the real name one had the fake name and alan jake up you know make such comments like oh that was really unlucky which makes very clear that he was well aware that this was not a truthful application and he was helping facilitate that as an associate of of the defendant allan tash who testified at trial i would say he was a more hesitant participant in the conspiracy but he did very clearly know about the conspiracy and take acts to further it so for example he testified that he represented the defend clients in asylum interviews and i think he talks about at least six occasions where he's in the asylum interview with the defend its clients he speaks both arabic and english he's following benjamin's translations and he had done a five mistranslations he reported them to the defendant he didn't do anything to report them to for example the immigration court or the sinaloa he reported them to the defendant and then he proceeded to continue to work for the defendant including going to the interview where this happened going to the one after that going to the want to after that each without telling the asylum officer that there was being information mistranslated to be consistent with the false asylum stories although the defense is right that he didn't come out and say i was i was a gungho participant in this conspiracy he did have immunity from the government for that purpose and the testimony of the substance of it makes very clear that that is in essence facilitating and agreeing to be part of the conspiracy knew when the person entered the united states not anything else second of all the jacob conversations again nothing comes of them there's no hearing there's nothing they're laughing as miss stanek said but nothing more that's not an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy and those three things are the only thing other than the citizen ship applications and the album called application which to the jury in the judge in the district court found not to be untruthful well they it's not like you get a gold star that it is truthful it's just not enough for a conviction that doesn't mean it can't be part of an overt act or you certainly would have to stretch it and in this case  your honour's of sufficient that this case was stale that's absolutely true and what happens with stale evidence or stale cases is we get bad facts these are bad facts this is a bad conviction your honor judge easterbrook you asked me about the seti article proffer and i might be asking here for another review but this is the government talking about their evidence that's the only point they're telling the court what their evidence will show multiple conspiracies and that's what we're saying occurred here exactly what the government said and then when they change their mind and say oh no it's a single conspiracy it's because of quote unquote the inclusion of the second interpolator yousef who didn't go to trial so when the government says our conspiracy and analysis changes when he's the only defendant on trial that's the case here and they say that it's multiple conspiracy i didn't make that up that's what they said and in response to the motion for directed verdict they said the clients don't know what any common purpose is they can't be coconspirators well that's not responsive to what judge easterbrook was pointing out it's the district court doesn't seem to be looking at the client was looking at the office that's several individual people but it can conspire with each other it's shakeup takesh and i believe that's all well chicken takesh and you've got the first the one interpreter then the other interpreter who are manipulating what they've been what they're hearing so that the story stays straight interpret the reason you haven't interpreters because the immigration judge probably doesn't speak the language so you need somebody with integrity to convey what's bugs none of you steps x are within the statute of limitations the only one that is is the tool translations going to say that one overt act i know that that's the law but in a stale prosecution where the government says it's multiple conspiracies where it relies on the citizenship applications which clearly don't know all facts supporting that the district court and the government say that they were coconspirators how can the government say and argue in this court that those are  and remember we've also asked here that that one of the rulings the court can do is give us a new trial ok thank you very much thanks to both counsel will take the case