e the way we're going to do this your honour's is going to divide between five five strategy or at least as close to that as we can get primarily in the appeal there are three two counts to stand in various interrelated necessarily the question is what is sufficient for the purpose if you terminating now what what describes criminal charges appropriately within an indictment reservation about that point whenever there's two additional cases that i'm trying to reconcile and figure out what the rule is following cecil the second one was miller and it uses language and approve in there as well having one has a definite beginning gave any definite and date but there is this sort of nebulous beginning date there at the start up the way i would i would beginning to any of that is completely nebulous it's really it's really it's really no and in either direction especially the test by the time you charge someone their criminal activities are specially done and over i think it's a very narrow standard i don't think cecil is the standard that applies in most cases but i do think it does apply in this case not only we're just talking about dates here and i certainly agree there is an end date but i do think it is distinguishable from some of these other cases where in fact you're talking a span as in seattle minus four months here you're talking about an end date when fact it really the question your honor i think when the power of the united states brought against you i think you're quick to tweet guilty i think there are twenty seven people who got deals and twenty seven people who didn't want fish and see of the charge those all get rolled in if the court strikes down town one of the defendants in my case mr clary has significant doubts that arise and i think the port in this case think once you strike the conspiracy out it becomes difficult for the court and to ascertain what in fact it was predicated on in the first place and it becomes difficult for distance counsel to mount an effective defense on the matter because  the real reason that they're in court they're all this discovery material it's got it's all gone and i don't want to cut you off if i don't your colleagues might think you we did was join in corrientes motion that was made three months before the trial even began i would also point out that at the time we joined in their motion the government did not object  and i would also point out that at that time we joined in their motion the court was discussing the failure of the government with our response to the brief to the motion that being the reason that motion and not have been decided and it was not until several days after we joined in th what the government wishes for this court to do is to give them a windfall of from being part of the address in the motion analysis given to our motions as opposed to karim's is based on the theory that from the cases that there are some kind of distinguish what we did in this case the district court analyzed her only needs with regards to her husband won her last time the government in this case indicted thirty people similarly to these other individuals and you cannot isolate her and view her with relation to standard or numerous other overall charges brought in this particular case again it's the individuals involved in the sixty's i believe the magic language retroactively analysis we can just say if it's an issue if they preserve it maybe maybe not but mr wood los case if you look at your new am i mean this isn't a piece to talk about left unresolved like hookers the question of what re and that objection i repeatedly talked to the thoughts of the court about the fact that all the evidence of drug weights and types of drugs was an issue that they were taking from when we talk about the rule seven challenge mr matthews and i joined the challenge in the trial i didn't do it beforehand and i argued two times just let it relate back like rules i believe the language sorry i should have this right for any beginning on an unknown date but existing at least between the dates etc and i think that's a little bit different than what we're talking about before so i think number one a little district that provide protections for dependents have changed and i think that most troubling thing about this case is and i think the reason why it must be reversed is the court believed it had to look at that language in an  points one bill of particulars told the government and told the defendants that you not only have twenty four pages of discovery you have an open file you know everything the government knows that everything the government knows you know what every witness said you know whatever surveillance let's think about how that's going to work normally you would make your motion they would make their motion and then let's say you lose then you have the option at that point to go back and do some kind of superseding indictment or whatever correct  but that didn't happen so now we're in the mirror trial if we were to reverse just hypothetically the trial judge's decision and then where happens now goes back to re s the government have a position given amalie and given that these appeals were pending you've probably already begun to see some returns to the district court in a number of cases is it your position that panels but i will also say the government had not responded to the motion by way of everything and so we invited them to do so after the fury was impaneled and so i'm going to share the blame on that score up on