expressed repeatedly over the past couple years concern with the child statutes the in fact just last thursday a case came down with two concurrences that in fact one from yourself are trying are but expressed concern legal arguments on those issues in case we were not required to reverse the structural or yes your honor the competent counsel issue is this is a strong issue and i didn't is the extent of the inquiry about the conflict that the court needs to concern itself with and one foot the defendant stated there was no discussion at that point about whether he was not have taken long answering my question but you're not answering my question it would not have taken long wouldn't be one but there would have to be a continuance of to some extent right i'm not a little lower level ok we'll do the the private attorneys did in fact try to move for another continuance before the ultimate trial date based on late disclosure from the government so that th effort to keep moving this trial date can turn even continued even private attorneys hands it is fair to say that that he probably would have needed another month or so from the february trial dates of this trial that would probably conflict was and let's not forget that when the attorney for i agree that there was an extensive conflict and apps here mistrust that the trial judge basically threatened am in the middle of his attempt to explain the co that they have not even discussed the defense with him but they haven't talked to his witnesses and they haven't discussed the fence with him a week before trial and that is the type of objective factor that would give rise to a  there's no evidence here that this source of the conflict is my client that he refused to talk to and what's interesting about the money issue is although the trial attorney the attorney at the hearing said well this is not about the money he did admit later that he had nothing to do with the money that other individuals in the sperm were the people who put pressure on the clients to pay why didn't he well it's a little bit about what is in other issues like the transportation this is the transportation issues is is  software but here the government's theory is in the way in the briefs are pretty extensive about explaining how this works but when you have a period if you're sharing program once you download the file into your sharing folder it's immediately available to anybody else and so the government's theory here is that when you download that file and leaving your share holder you are guilty of receipt possession transportation and advertising can then give up on the factor for the government in this case however the preparation of counsel for the trial it may even as the public defender who is there move at the gate didn't say how long it would take you to be ready he knew that it would take t think he was trying to do it best acting the best interest of the defendant when he said you've got a really good lawyer he's one of the top you ought to be grateful you know he's really good i'm not going to replace him just  you think the wreckage was something else please show us where in the record it gives the different ways you're at i think what the court was software is involved first of all the evidence shows that the investigation there was a video that was transmitted by computer internet to the and child pornography from the computer distribution if you will that's a term of art i understand that what i'm asking you is as you are understanding transportation it isn't good enough that it just is sitting there and if somebody you have if it moves from the location and here the evidence is the video moved from one location that is the defendant's computer to then having very hard time i understand it moved but i don't understand why i would because you set up if you set up the programs that allow it to occur the passive movement under this court's case all constitutes a distribution that is if someone else actually receives it in this case if one charges distribution where someone received it just that it was predecessor version of the statute it would have your honor but the congress changed the statute in two thousand and eight to allow for any time a facility of interstate commerce is all that has to do with  p program and they get pornography and pornography flows out of their computer to someone else is there always in that situation that transportation or i'm sorry advertising when it is offered pornography child pornography over a peer to peer that also involves advertisement as well your honor so there are separate offenses separate elements the problem is that as apply for this circumstance there is no separate act at all the person just might have to do anything differently to me  the distribution requires proof that it was transferred to another person or is transportation you have to do anything to if let's say that the pornography throws him and out so we know there's receipt of pornography there's distribution of pornography there's transportation and advertising at least for crimes from having that on your computer and getting stuff in and out correct that's correct as separate elements under block for i would i would say answer that the affirmative that congress did intend that because of the separate elements that they require the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt why they did it  not i can't answer that but they are getting in in this context what would be the difference i guess that would be a different element than advertising in transportation i guess but what was there ever be a case where you had advertising but not transportation where you had transportation but not have has it when you're using a p the program you know i would i think you could have advertising without the transportation if someone were to able were able to see that you are offering so to speak  the availability of certain shopping or graffiti without having been without asking to download it and transporting it to to another computer so you could have the advertising i would suggest to the court however transportation if you had the transportation with the peer to peer your honor i was glad that you would have had to had advertised it prior to the transportation so that the reverse would not be true  so there was always the advertise that there would only be transportation if somebody accessed your computer and took stuff out of right with a peer to peer network is honest and how that operates there would be if there's transportation it would have to have been created by the advertising owner there would always be advertising that there would not be transportation if someone just looked but didn't push the button to transfer the phone if they just is understand you are especially if they just looked and saw the title the subject matter but did not use your honour's term push the button and it would not be this conference like we may discuss whether to ask for supplemental briefing on that issue rather than twenty eight jan rather because that way and then you push the button actually i thought because it goes to that you elements of merger there's two aspects of it there's a cost to tional blocker elsa's which if there's different elements that doesn't apply but there's also the statutory construction analysis which is paramount