you can argue that there's no evidence that your client knew anything about this person when your client point guilty to conspiring with how can he say i never plead guilty to which is what i hear you saying in your briefing any type of podium doesn't there have to be a fact or basis laid on the record for a person to plead guilty was so these are two different questions but you know so let me try to take them one at a time with the first question of what he pled guilty to your other add factual basis there was absolutely without question can all go make a lot of money in the market you know somebody is trading right so we don't really have a sort of fair notice or equity well sure we do and here's why because the two reasons and it's a it's an excellent question but there's but there's two reasons why he would not know that somebody like it or maybe even existed number one and the record was clear in this case that mr tamayo traded on his own account that is he had he did online trading himself and people to that  don't know him i'm insider trading with my buddy tomorrow and that's it i'm not clean guilty to any women brawls this other guy never heard of rape but that's that never happened right rate so first of all again if or are you saying that the district court there could be two things to say i want to make sure i understand it but one thing you could be saying is that i don't know if you're saying this but one thing you could be saying that the district court blew it because it was count one charge the three person conspiracy and when it came time for the colloquy my client got up and all he agreed to was conspiring with mr tomorrow that's it one because the record was improperly late if that's your argument then it's a whole different problem right but if your argument is we just take it as a legal matter even no account can charge a specific conspiracy among specific needs individuals it's still awful invalid for a person to come into court and say i i did mit to conspiring with one of those people but not really joining that whole conspiracy if that's your argument i'm puzzled because and if you join a different conspiracy that's something else and you got a variance from the indictment you got a problem you got to dismiss the count it's cetera or we are you coming out of us with this is it he never really should have been accepted as having pl facts and in order to plead guilty you do not have to admit to every single one of those nor that's true this is true but we're not talking about whether he admits to i had you know i was involved in this wing of the conspiracy that mentioned in this or i was involved in that this is a conspiracy alleged of three people and you're saying he just wasn't part of that he committed the crime of conspiring to commit insider trading it a possible thing that you would concede your thing can be read to acknowledge that he became aware of mistrial on and but the conspiracy was still going on until the time he was arrested so he joined that three person conspiracy but he didn't know about him and before about and therefore the money's accrued pretty his knowledge of vitamin that hippie taking into account is that a way to look at the record certainly or before that the record is not particularly clear on that one could the government submitted a power station from january thirteenth two thousand and fourteen that i don't it shows that he had any knowledge of this trade i'm a but certainly by january twenty eighth there specific and by the way that conversation is not does not involve him but as the conversation just switched on january twenty eighth two thousand and fourteen there was discussion of a broker and his reaction to the discussion of the broker court wants to say something very different it can it is not required even in a conspiracy no matter how many participants are whether it's three or six or ten or you know to do to you have to do that you have to create guilty for the conspiracy charge can't you can't just say i'm guilty of insider trading with somebody you can plead guilty to the conspiracy that struck nagual if that's true then somebody whether the defendant or the government or the court should have quiet because that is not  concedes when the government can see the only way you did that you might be on your best ground by just saying what you said a minute ago which is there you could look at it as he joined the conspiracy and then you've got a ground to fight on without  adamant family and friends did the trait that edelman is clients did several steps removed took turns on a construction of to be one point four and for the reasons that we set forth in a brief we say that those those those case that case was a circumstance in which the broker's involvement was under spirited and we've been out of our way into footnotes and above the line to say it's clear that cruiser met for  insider tips to get to the broker that was agreed by everybody so how does that answer the question posed in this case where the defendant is saying this is precisely i never met for those tips to saying that the words in concert as you seem to be one point four indistinguishable from the idea of conspiracy in that somebody who enters a conspiracy and no matter what point is responsible for everything that happened before an insider trading under to any reason supported by the record not based on the argument you made because right my review of the record that you personally but the government better view of the record indicates that there was a lot of discussion about kluger a case that for the reasons judge jordan just articulated i really didn't have a lot of bearing on the sense that the left ear appraisal of what happened in the district court there was a there was an extreme focus i could go on and i think that was the basis for the district court's decision but i would respectfully senate where it says ruth says you know government wins in a case like this because the need to fed him plead guilty to conspiracy will not later be heard to argue that he did not act regime that no matter when you enter a conspiracy it's an insider trading conspiracy you're guilty for all gains in that conspiracy and that's what krueger says that's the government does that it position on you and if we disagreed facts in this case and get to the result that the district court but the only way you can get there is to accept what you read cougars saying yes but if we have to accept the premise and that act in concert with  kluger in some way it was a harsh decision for defendants i mean it kluger clearly said that we want to send a deterrent message in so that if you're the tipper we're going to be responsible for what happens down the line certainly things that are within the scope of your to be very broad though i mean if i look this morning at the third circuit model charges on one conspiracy a you can be held responsible for things that predate you or your joining you can also be held responsible for for things that  york you know the identity of other people who are involved and it's a full extent yet that people are working towards the same common object that you can be held responsible for that but the government's argument though is that the words acting in concert with  show only mr metro wasn't acting in concert right as a and then bet would you saying that's a factual impossibility i don't think you should interpret  possible to plead guilty to a three person to a conspiracy it's a puppet was it is legally possible to plead guilty to a count which charges insider trading amongst a conspiracy of three  out agreeing that you conspired with the other two people in that three person conspiracy i take that to be his position that you don't have to agree to everything a factual detail and mike my question to you is is he right or is he wrong about his assertion i think wrong about that because i think that would open up the possibility that he in fact pled guilty to a different conspiracy than the one that was charged to see those we see those give the factual recitation which was supposed to touch on every element of the offense so you're saying that as a matter of conspiracy draw a conspiracy charging account charging a three person conspiracy doesn't have to have a plea colloquy but establishes that the person joined the conspiracy of three were knew who else was in the conspiracy that's the government's sure it is they will have a troll person drug  but that doesn't show any right or rather she acted in concert conspired for purposes of the damages there are so much that that is absolutely what we say in our paper so that you didn't what one can do there's no question that if you act in concert with someone that you are conspiring with them but it there is the question of whether if you are part of a conspiracy with someone which occurs as a matter of law in many circumstances you are also acting in concert with them within the meaning of to be one point four were purposes of attributing wasser again in the context of sentencing not for the purpose of establishing liability absolutely correct and the best way you know that is because of deciding liability the laws are very clear that you look at in terms of whether you are responsible for the act of coconspirators is whether their actions were foreseeable are complicated cases they say that right about these it's hard to decide on what the game is we're not going to say and they don't say you're responsible for all beings that occurred course of the conspiracy because remember insider trading cases are almost well  would not have had to say that it was assumed from the get go that every as a matter of strict liability which is the government's position that's a completely unprecedented that you are responsible for everything that happens in the course of the insider trading and remember here as you think