that such a twelve possessed child pornography and it was based on multiple reckless if not intentional materially false statements and admissions now we've argued that the finding probably cause was based on a long list of untenable chain of inferences all of which started from some comments that such a twelve left on posts on the sam's place message board  now that kind of started it all but the the st assumption that the agent made was that these posts could only be read to me that such a twelve had manually cut and pasted the external links that were in these posts because they were not hyperlinked so he would have had to have cut and pasted these links as opposed to simply making comments without actually those don't seem to be most consistent with just looking at the the pictures that people put on when they when they sign it well and so that that in many ways gets to the the problem with these  false statements and omissions from the affidavit stripper's false statements omissions just for a moment we're still left with at least one where your client seems to be referring to multiple images when there are multiple images there's two sets of multiple images if you will and it seems more likely than not that he's referring to the porn are pornographic images and the others well of course whether or not they're actual child pornography is also another issue which is one of the failed missions none of the images either from these well it's not but that's not in front of us we know there are child pornography because he was convicted of them  but just for the moment focus on you said there's no way no probable cause to show that he must've in effect looked in these files and i'm saying take out everything you think is false doesn't your client still make statements that are most reasonably read as saying i must have looked at something other than the two people signing on no your honor and again it's because what the agent did was for the  hearing that yes he was wrong he characterized it as an honest mistake but then we get to the nd image where he also referred to it as where the nd post where he indicates it's a single image when in fact there is more than one so what do you do with it let me give you the one that i think is the most difficult one for you a set of beautiful madison there even if even assuming that there are two we are now the record we can see with the two images are it seems to me just doesn't make sense it is referring to a set of beautiful madison with the signature to the signature images which are clearly of two different people well you're out of there again he was referring to the set of madison but the actual affidavit what the agent re than one correct as is most maybe that's correct and the post itself references a set but so he may have simply been parroting what the what the post indicated in order to you know just make a comment because the rules of the message board were that he had to include comments so many times before he gets kicked off message board so he very well may have simply been including a comment agent said you know why it wasn't relevant for my determination that there was probable cause a post where he also where they were not able to download any images the agents were not able to locate any images they couldn't connect it to any link so does that demonstrate that there were no links what that the problem as we don't know but it's something that the magistrate judge should have been made aware of in order to make the determination and we know under perkins that the  maybe two the images we've never seen right and it also the descriptions don't necessarily establish that they are those of us exhibition of the genitals argument on the challenge of the war and neither and again and this goes to not because the agent because the agents actions right yeah i mean it's the agent who came up with all of this and the which are both high hurdles to do to succeed in a frank's hearing which is why we get to whether or not any of these materials in fact qualified as child pornography as opposed to child  erotica even the agent acknowledge that the links were primarily try to radhika that with some of them it may have just been a single image of child pornography in his opinion right but in this case really have been misleading because  not actually look at any of the linked images and by the way we have no idea if such a twelve look at the particularly images because even the agent acknowledge that they did look at all of the links so i want to get that your your in perkins which is a much more recent case this court made clear that must be done that it's a fail mission not to provide those images because when it comes to a see this exhibition it is entirely subjective and we cannot leave that subjective determination to agents that's what the judge is there for and so the failure to provide those images either in these previews or the actual link images was fatal because we have absolutely  the magistrate judge never made a determination that there was any child pornography involved in this and when one looks at the description of the district court at the franks hearing said well the district is the descriptions were good enough which is completely contrary to perkins but even then the girl was pulling her skirt up exposing her bare vagina that doesn't show that it's lascivious exhibition it just shows says that there is an image that has been exposed the jhana will be found if the judge is never told or shown the images i think from all of the facts that are located within the affidavit your honor starting in this case from describing the same space message board the images that were described by the dozens of post that were made by this particular defendant the ip address that ties to his residence and the accurate descriptions were which were not disputed think district court accurate descriptions of both the posts on sam's place as well of the underlying images so you think this is different in person because the description of the underlying images was this case have the magistrate been given accurate information about the images as well as accurate information that a canadian law enforcement had decided that this was not tell cannot do with those facts that that magistrate if he had known would have needed to see the underlying images in perkins what you had was an affidavit who an affidavit which said that an individual had been stopped by canadian law enforcement for child pornography but neglected to say that charges were never filed never brought district judge finds that they're not intentional but they are there americans assuming that the judge how does that still i still want to have the judge knows the images are pornographic what is what is the the scriptures by the law enforcement officer the killing of the of the images that when clicked on the download right that showed the focal point of the images the placement of the body of the few more with the legs spread out with showing vagina in one instance same with the clear fluid substance on her chest with those descriptive images which are very distinct from both perkins from before that batter shell and brunette of the st circuit case the defendant  very different descriptions those give detailed descriptions of the placement of the body of the placement of the genitalia of the focal point and based on those descriptions this magistrate judge could have determined that there was a fair probability based on all the evidence requiring that the actual images be shown to the magistrate judge i don't your honor i read perkins to say that in the circumstances of this case when you have two images which were not accurately described and evidence cited an independent photos didn't appear to be sexual in nature it described the focal point as of the genitalia as far away and removed and those were those aspects were deleted from on the affidavit given to the magistrate judge in the united states and aspects of them were heightened i think and that is very different from the situation to take a case with no misrepresentations if the agent describes probable cause in general and then says i've looked at agent testified that the reason that he didn't include the actual images was that it was his experience with magistrates that anything that has these types of images with children jake they generally don't want to see them and that testimony was credited by the district court that's correct your honor he said that in his experience they didn't but that is based on his descriptions very obvious that he could have provided the images and had them if the magistrate judge had wanted to see the images themselves because accor what we're talking about is is slight honest mistakes an honest oversight as the as the agent said beginning with one the small foot or image i would call it of the girl in the fish that starred the mistakes are all about not the not the actual pornographic images but the signature images if you that if that's correct none of them are about the underlying point a graphic images there are there was an omission on the description of one of the comments and there i think when you look at the images themselves you can see why the agent made that honest oversight because there is a clear difference between what he described as a preview image which is a preview of the images you'll see if you download versus what is a to have included images just to make the picture complete and say these are the these are the images on the board these are not necessarily child pornography just could have but i think importantly and for this case it wasn't reckless of him not to give him the accurate descriptions of both the posts and the underlying images and importantly it wasn't material to the finding of probable cause of the district court rightly found when she reviewed the images and determined looking at these there were no reckless or intentional missions these were this was an honest mistake on one image in three different posts why don't we do with the law that says you have to provide the  gave no facts to allow the magistrate judge to make an independent determination of what the images said in that case giving just a recitation of the statutory language without at least some and i would put again brunet at least some assessment of the specific description whether there's a fair probability of probable cause to find child pornography in a place i don't think it's required in all cases no matter the context for the magistrate judge to look at the images themselves certainly in certain contexts and certain situations based on the fact in every case perkins says under facts in that case where the agent lied and did a bunch of things and there was substantial doubt from his description which was conclusory whether the images were actually pornographic that they should have been shown to them but i did i just really read perkins it surely doesn't say it must be done and every time this entire point of the dissent in perkins was that we don't have this requirement and majority has just established a requirement but with all respect holdings are not