trent the fundamental issue concerns the fact that the government was permitted to assert the first source and nature of two pieces of paper that were in possession of the prosecutor without competent probative evidence to demonstrate those assertions there is no foundation of knowledge about the source and nature of these documents from the witness the single witness that the government called and as we know there was no other evidence typically would have a stipulation or there would be a subpoena and a certification we don't have those here so the fundamental problem is that the assertions regarding the source and nature of these pieces of paper we're insulated from confrontation because there was no ability no evidence to confront that there was no opportunity to confront but the assertions were made none the less so i think it's really important to also look at what the issue is not the confrontation issue is not it's a flight manifest a business record generally speaking of the issues not is it a business record generally speaking  template but it clearly has some knowledge but his only room knowledge is only limited to the text on the page it's only limited to the basic form of the piece of paper it would be much like having a contested will come into court and an expert coming in and who's an expert on wills to look at the piece of paper and say well i'm an expert on wells that looks like a whale therefore i want to introduce this as mr x in this one oh we can do that one could never do that there needs to be not missing included but the constitutional problem the constitutional problem is that for the person who is challenging that there is no ability to get to the actual source of the papers that are being presented the source and nature of those particular pieces of paper because again we're not dealing in generalities with is this a flight manifest and let's talk about what a flight manifest looks like and typically how a flight manifest is generated but here we're talking about these particular pieces of paper that the prosecutor appears in court with and he holds him up and he says i want to introduce those were they come from who produced them who were they given to what was the communication at that time and one would suppose that there was some communication at that time that type of communication which concerns information about what this is east testimonial and the federal district court in this case acknowledge that that those are testimonial assertions the district court ruled i think improperly that given the fact that there was no still meant about the source and nature and that he just testified without knowledge about the appearance then there is no confrontation issue because there is no testimonial statement so we run into this fundamental problem that the assertions are being made both through the witness that was called spite the fact that he  knowledge and this i've also indicated in my brief video or is this issue of the fact that the government is essentially making these assertions and doing so through the production increase in taishan of the papers interesting enough at every stage of these proceedings in the state courts in the federal district court and even shearer the assumption of the attorney general is that we are dealing with a flight manifest necessary to ask the question upstream of that how do we even establish where these came from how do we establish what they are there is no basis of knowledge no no need to confront on that issue i see my time is of trial he said the only difference he found was a font difference but he explained that that's because the airline it switched to a laser printer from the ribbon printers that had used before the petitioners don't find incredible because of the very good cross examination their lawyers did a trial but  it's clear that the person who makes the way that it that person is present is not necessary in court but counsel seems to be arguing something a little bit different which is generally when you have a keeper or someone with knowledge come in that business record is generated by the business in the wanting to call why do liberals to someone and that person can say ok i know it's a business record because i retr with the prosecution from somewhere and we don't know where they came from but country provided the necessary foundation for the documents by explaining  recognizes all of these many different identifiers that wrong for example zero one six was the number the tickets began with that's unique to united airlines he explained that the format was generated by this apollo computer system in which united has proprietary rights because of certain passenger secrecy information here explained that he could tell the type of aircraft it was the same type of aircraft bam as it was at the time of his america's season of his trial testimony and he explained that he had seen hundreds of both of these types of judge thompson focusing on on what you've raised i think that is exactly the issue and the notion that peace were not made with an eye toward prosecution simply begs the question again that presume senate assumes that we're dealing with a flight manifest that was made by a particular business and the whole point here is that these pieces of paper and let's be clear we don't have a flight manifest we have a single piece of paper that the prosecutor asserts as part of a bigger document that we don't have and we have no leg that goes back to particular business we have no information about who gave these over we have no information about what was communicated we have no information about the circumstances under which these documents were produced with respect to the issue of hearsay the attorney general has indicated in this brief that the trial judge gave a loony instruction put it in consideration of the documents with the truth through i suggest that that is very and correct the instruction to write to put the jury could receive the documents as evidence that person's if not the defendants were on the flights using the same names th testimonial purpose with respect to prejudice again i just mentioned very very briefly this run up to a single justice it was very important there is no evidence in odd for them to have at some point gone back to their home country