five motion claiming suppression of an osa death investigation and investigations and files on mr skinner the problematic and dormant in the case from ira as and other agencies that had been disclosed they also filed in the hay vs proceedings a request for o c that records and in response to government the government did not respond that there were investigations and indicated that the only agency involved in the claim and didn't find that there was any participation by other agencies and they indicated to that they were denying those the debt proposal request indicating that they didn't  when this matter went back down to remain and the government had responded that i'm sorry the government had submitted an affidavit from a case agent mr nichols and this response from the government and the eleven dash thirty thirty case had suggested that the responsibility for not disclosing the o c debt and best geishas were was on the agent as opposed to the prosecution and  didn't know i had they basically he denied awareness of the matter so we who's he who denied then also at the for the first time disclosed to us the marshal service with the code lead signatory agency with i r s and he said that they had minimal participation in the investigation right  eventually he did say that you know you did say that it ultimately the district court found there was the exact words quote nothing to show unquote intentional deception ok by the prosecution by the government and with that finding if that finding is not clearly erroneous tell me why you're not done because all of you all of your allegations are predicated on the notion that there was intentional deception if there is not intentional deception what else is what well i believe the set chronology of events shows that there were because what we've got is representing i don't think you responded to my question i said do you believe number one is there any basis to believe it's not clearly erroneous but the but the real my understanding is everything rests on whether there was intentional deception is that correct or other misconduct and way in the misconduct and the basically what happened is this  misrepresentations led to the district court making rulings that did not get never been started he said that you their claims you said the intentional deception led to something else but if there was an intentional deception i think the misconduct necessarily has to amount to fraud on the court but you can find that the misconduct and barrow presented then for a fair proceedings and from receiving the discovery and not have to find fraud on the court but can find misconduct on a lesser stand and what well two questions come out of that one did in repapered is it explicitly what was what was supposed to be the purpose of the future proceedings to determine whether intentional deception or stalled discovery in the twenty two fifty five proceeding is it that would in repeated asked the court to make a determination oh yes and we believe that the court overlooked  ok if that was they were doing so all right well if that's wouldn't report as support to make a determination on this other misconduct the question the second question is what authority do you have that other misconduct would even be relevant v in this in what in getting relief in this matter well i think it's an compassed and and i mean i think it's just a lesser form of what you would have to find for the sixty lying on the false statement to issue its ruling that's certainly not what the law was as dictated by in the picture and that's not what the law appears to be and i think i heard you say that you have to have intentional deception and fraud on the court claim don't you well i think what's important in this decision is that the court in finding it the involvement was minimal i don't believe that's that's the standard of determining whether there's an intent to deceive false it even if you took the premise that the government and the prosecutor was negligent in knowing about this investigation even if you took the premise that there was while we know they were according to age and nipples they were involved at some minimal level and even if you take the premise that the government should have talked about that that is not the same as intentional deception that's that that's what we need to get at in according to the court there was there they discussed revisited barely and they focused on fairness integrity and public perception and recognize a broader category of words correction and they rejected a miscarriage of about what we're talking about is whether it was so insignificant in the scheme of things not the question of whether material be affected the trial the question is whether there was any reason to infer that the prosecutor was intentionally lying essentially when when they said that there was no other government involvement when you have an agent swearing under oath that essentially that yeah there you know this is a hiden osa death investigation so there are other agencies but they didn't do anything  went on in this specific case and you have an agent under oath saying that you know guidelines are the guidelines but i'll tell you what happens here and what happened here was there was minimal involvement you got to be able to come up with something to get beyond that and determ minimal and the court rejected that assertion is false and based on the structure of the of the o c death itself rejected that is false because it requires more tight agency participation and were not found by their case at all  of sixty b motion final order you need to see a way in order to appeal why don't you have one and was there any action in the district court that would allow you to have one and this and this you better believe  came out of that remain which is why we're here on appeal appeal at least you follow the notice of appeal i'm not saying it can't be rectified i'm just saying do you know of anywhere in the record where the district court ruled on know i doubt good morning runners james brown from united states i would like to just touch on some some of the main points that we think that this courtship key on the when deciding whether to reform the district court and the court has already touched on the main point  might my colleagues briefing on the reply suggest that that wasn't day wasn't a real finding it was just sort of an opinion but it was a finding of the court stated that materials before the court including the c i conclusively  to one page eleven in the court goes on defendants have done nothing to show that the prosecutor has intentionally deceived the court stock in neither one of thirteen fourteen court goes on the defensive not shoot any reason to believe the government knew that it's representations the court false or not is another question but the notion that there were no other agencies involved i mean nominally anyway there were other agencies involved well we don't think the assertions were false and they certainly were intentionally falwell one of those are two different questions and why wouldn't they be false if there was a hide investigation and osa death investigation in the sorry there are other names on those forms the fact that it's a high that investigation  that any other agency decides yet actually did any part of the investigation that doesn't mean they didn't sign up and that doesn't mean that they aren't a part of that whether they did anything is a different question from whether they are nominally on that paper as require that it was a this ok the answer to the courts question is yes ok that thank you but that doesn't mean that any of those other agencies besides da actually did in the investigation that's a separate question that's the one that i was getting at earlier this one you can say nominally they were involved they signed up that doesn't mean they did anything that goes they should nichols affidavit but that is it my point is simply that if you're asked is any other agency involved in this answer we got the answer we got was what happened is in a pleading the defendant said here's all the stuff we didn't get that was supposedly the scope of story and the prosecutor responded finally because the government provided defendants with skinner's complete criminal history  something parents from the statement right after that are saying just to clarify the assertion that was made it's allegedly pulls was what was it that there's no other agency involved no substantial involvement investigation so they're talking about matters related to supposedly exculpatory tiriel relating to skinner and and the prosecutor saying he was unaware of these matters that were being referred to and they did not do a list of stuff that they supposedly didn't get from office and i don't think that all that stuff was in the control of the of the other agency it's stuff that came from from skinner's mouth after after the trial was over and after he fraud on we've already explored that limb and may explore more but but all i'm saying is this is not the comprehensive answer and you could say they were involved in this investigation at some level but the reality is their name was on something and so if this answer does not reveal and they did not know previously that this investigation was conducted under the rubric of a joint task force if they didn't know that then that's a piece of information that they probably wanted to know isn't it well the you know it's that's an interesting question and the question goes to what we actually have to give over as far as basically turned on us during the trial and became their witness that that point they had access to everything skinner knew he went on the stand for them and testified for them during their case and cheap so they had absolutely everything there was to have best the time  trial though they re all the brady is operative at trial the reality is that if they were forestall from having discovery that would allow them to operate within the trial and effective way you know that's a problem we don't think that was the case at all we don't think that was the  stuff they're talking about came from scanners now after the trial and that's what we were responding to when the prosecutor was talking about in this investigation is talking about the investigation that's basically totally  identifying information covered by the district court rule that's been redacted that's on file and that's open so that's that's all before the court there's a motion to strike the filing on the basis that it doesn't comply with this rules for electronic filing my c i thought that as a matter of completeness which seemed to need to be a reasonable thing to do that you would file a burden that same thing with the district court look at central reviewing what the district court did it with does under seal so you have kno any other or any other agency performed an investigation that's all were sent and that's why we put that big yellow light please don't assume that the prosecutor statements are incorrect they're not incorrect they were correct statements this in the second statement  e any cooperation the fact that the prosecutor never mentioned that this was under the rubric of a joint investigation is not necessarily a cool recitation of what happened here whether whether the d the only one in ball in this matter and no agent nichols didn't say that there was absolutely no involvement of any other agency he just said what they did was minimal right right ok so that doesn't mean they were absolutely not nominal speaking as the courts said yes thanks it took a long time to get there but that's exactly what i actually conceded that earlier on and i'm just reiterating that concession right now and appreciate i appreciate the court's bringing up to my attention i do i will just ask  materials and that's it that's true but that's not really the question now the question is not whether there was a brady byelection the question is whether by virtue of the statements that were made you forestall them asking additional questions and when you asked additional we had discussed that the district where aired a ruling prematurely because of a previous district court order from two thousand and fourteen where the district court had indicated that the government should respond to our motion for fraud on and also to produce the c i file that wasn't done in two thousand and fourteen and wasn't done till february and so we haven't had a chance to supplement those pleadings because the district