united states again true which is our case for the day restated in order to try to cure the problems with the original opinion which were numerous but fundamentally that the opinion was forbidden under  b it's just so it seems to me that a rephrasing of the original opinion so that the the second opinion does not the expert would not have testified specifically that missed true it  job as a forensic psychologist which he has been for performing for well over a decade necessarily includes the start of the sort of external forces that he  moreover and this is more factual he did he he did have experienced specifically with charismatic groups and he did talk about his specific experience regarding social psychology and group dynamics and i think in light of that experience and in light of this circus case law whatever it was government wish to argue he had a lack of specialization i think that would go too great of an analytical gap between the data and studies he looked at me and he temple in this case and his methodology was a kin to a differential diagnos this case and she was offering a defendant specific diagnosis that runs in seven forty and i think that we there you know he ultimately came to the conclusion that  to allow him to testify about some of the conclusions he read leading up to that opinion right to the extent that it's an expert opinion about this temple the only person he interviewed is the defendant herself it's correct that he only interviewed mr treuer herself however he relied on a number of other documents produced by temple members as well as hundreds of pages of discovery from that were question is not whether an expert witness is qualified in general but whether his qualifications provide a foundation for him to answer a specific question and he or as defense counsel just told the court the first question that this witness was going to answer or testified about was that the morse temple placed a charismatic group and in that testimony he was testifying on the differential diagnosis of the defendant he was testifying about  the field the field here with the study of charismatic groups the methodology there was that all it shows on the record is what that methodology is the methodology of dr gallagher which involves numerous interviews yes mistake refers to two cases maybe some confusion in the record but my reading of the record is one case some years ago that he could not pull out a date on he doesn't state involved charismatic groups so that he had it study group in connection with so i guess the government as the district court found and did not abuse its discretion that this witness did not have the necessary expertise and did further i mean if you couldn't even establish that fact if you didn't have the expertise and he didn't have to have another dollar to even say that this temple was a charismatic group you don't even get to a second  agree with with you judge strikes was always a bit nebulous and clear but as described now was can have powerful full facts an individual's well i hate hearing that not an expert on this area but he offered nothing as the district court pointed out nothing in the record before the judge ruled on this before trial to even support that conclusion and in particular