honor please a court i can recall up two years ago when i was preparing for the jury trial several days before the trial i was out when eating for ron and i was trying to figure out what kind of theme i was going to use for the case and a little bit odd but the old operative scott movie the man and knew too much came to my head and i thought that this case was the opposite of that this case involved frank i didn't go the man  knew too little while that theme did not prevail at trial counsel and let me if i may just walk ask you the following question it seems to me that assuming that your argument about was not properly convicted and frank was not properly convicted is that correct that's correct i also applies to the rodriguez decision that your instruction that case so my main question is it seems to me that and obviously others may have a different view but it seems to me that the instructions on harboring and reckless disregard were erroneous but did anything to hide this young girl from immigration law enforcement and so i you know that if destruction basically that was given well the judge would not give the nine one three instruction this young lady from detection by law enforcement and there was no no such evidence i cited in my brief and on the record transcript i asked the lead agent the nobel was his name whether he had any evidence my reckless disregard jury instruction the government's in complete agreement with us that this meets all the elements of plain air except for prejudicial prejudicial is probably our strong our strongest argument you have the only evidence that the government points to in their brief after saying that it has tremendous evidence points to on the next page paper for is one sentence in her statement this statement was summarized the agent goes in age of malicious schwartz goes in talks to my client lily with the translator takes notes and then goes back to our office and try and types up that summary of her state of the conversation the only thing she says is yeah that's the i ninety four form and that's the parole date but there's no context of what that was in so we don't know she probably just said you see that form that's an i ninety four and you see that date that's the parole day but there's no direct evidence that lily knew what a parole date is or what and i ninety four there's no evidence no direct evidence at all so you contrast that with what there is evidence of in her conduct she was an open book she comes into the immigration procedure she comes into taipan and tells him i have this chinese kid i'm taking him to  school she goes to p s s she gives him a map to their house they they fill out immigration forms everything's an open book there's absolutely no evidence of hiding so when you go to the jury i assume the jury goes in goes we need to read evidence while there is none so ok let's go to the reckless disregard instruction oh well maybe we can take this statement that the government argues is indisputable evidence of her knowledge and maybe we can morph that into a reckless disregard that meets the standard in this case your honour's which is basically more than a  probability but less than a preponderance so we meet all those elements of the plane air unfortunately i wasn't as smart as the rodriguez attorney i didn't i didn't object to it we have jacked it to the harboring i mean if there's no other questions i'd like to move to that argument basically we need a man derail we know we need a specific intent to harboring we look at the other circuits which the government doesn't really discuss in their council what the case of united states forces you why are you a paris to state that there is no requirement of an intention to violate the law but it doesn't seem to require that the method of violating the law has to be avoidance of detection by immigration authorities and let me give you a hypothetical suppose somebody objects to the immigration laws who goes on television and says i'm going to harbor this person i doing it intentionally i hope you catch me because i want to make speeches to the court about why this is an unjust law and so on and so forth and under your formulation that person would not be guilty of harboring even though they have the specific content to violate the law because they're not trying to avoid detection so i wonder why the proper instruction wouldn't just be an intention to violate the law because i think there needs to jerry needs more guidance i mean this is such a lie i mean i mean i guess understand why it has to be avoidance of detection as opposed to just a specific intent to harbor someone in violation of the immigration law yes i think that's actually a good point and actually if you look at which is a very good case and this unfortunate different circuit the seventh circuit in u s custody low they go through that the history they go through a very good discussion and in the end they just say you know what it isn't harboring isn't just giving somebody a  home and it's an excellent decision and agri with you we just need in our case i think we need that to avoid detection language to follow the pattern jury instruction in this case because that's really what was at issue because there was no attempt at concealment or hiding so if you don't give that i think that would have been better for us but now that our problem was the court gave you know knowingly and link that to knowingly giving shelter to well that opens up everything i mean and elo actually talks about you've got emergency rooms you know they you go and you stay a night at the emergency room if they know you're an illegal alien churches parents they talk about parents have giving their kid who's an illegal alien let him spend the night at somebody else's house we're going to open up this floodgate of litigation cust ella talks about there's ten point two back and when it was decided i think two thousand and twelve ten point two million illegal aliens here i mean when you multiply that how many where are they living i think we've got big problems and i think that you just said that the government's definition of just giving shelter to it goes far far afield of  what was intended thank you can i mean i'm out of time yes thank you thank you so why was this case filed i mean you didn't file it i understand that but every prosecutor's office has guidelines about you know making sure you're not charging the emergency room staff for treating and holding overnight it was a division of your services was called out for a child case allegations of abuse they come upon the child find out just illegal it's referred to us and from there they intervene as as said in our brief interview the parents parents said they paid money for the girl to come here girl said she was abused that's how it gets launched but at the heart this is a case about lillian frank taking advantage of the scene of my so unique entry requirements and entering into a business relationship with the parents  minor child in china and bring her to the united states affording her shelter and so that she may pursue better educational opportunities in the united states government smith said the primary issue here really is the jury instruction we will concede that if pretty much if either my frank or lily are correct that we would not be able to establish harness here so the in particular the issue is where the attraction is given below a correct state of the law or sufficiently a correct statement of law or did they require more for example well let me let me start by asking you the same question luis counsel and that has to do with the effect of our holding in the united states sources you that says adequate jury instructions therefore must require a finding that the defendants intended to violate the law are that's a that's a direct quote and without that i don't understand how it can be adequate under our precedence regardless of the theory of that was the whole it's not to the extent that you controls it would be problematic for the government's case we don't think that you should can control we think it was it was based on faulty reasoning it also we don't know what we're bound by our own precedents whether they smart or not smart whether they use good reasoning or bad reasoning is a three judge panel i mean we can always take a case in back if we think that it was poorly decided but that's not a basis to distinguish it isn't well the basic reason is that it's not the direct holding of you it's been used in extrapolating from that in other cases have said that how is that sentence i read where the holding was to defend in that case are saying that knowingly relied upon subsequently is not necessary to the court's holding to address the issue of knowingly but i think that there's that we would have to resolve the issue of you and its relationship to a cost of the evidence and how did those two things coexist well i think it seems to me they co exist because the statement that you have to intend to violate the law can be fulfilled by a number of different kinds of evidence it could be the purpose of evading the immigration authorities are and could be as i suggested in my hypothetical an intention to be civilly disobedient but intentionally violating the law there are a number of evidentiary ways so you don't need to specify the evidence or he way is but you do need to specify the intent it seems to me your honor i mean again or where as as shown in our brief and we truly believe that you it was wrongly decided that imposing an intent element where none exists and none is allowed is impermissible and so we would ask this court to strive to hold that you is not holding because about the lack of a mental state and there is a mental state in this case there clearly is already a mental state a sufficient mental state but carter says if you're concerned about the that mental state must be imposed on a statute because one is lacking and that can be fulfilled by general intent or knowledge and once that is satisfied it's over and you cannot impose an additional burden on the government where none exist in the language of the statute and if you look at other cases like bailey where they comply with a reversed the imposition of specific intent where no existed was a purposeful requirement in that case just like it would be in this case and that language if the word intent is not in the statute and i would think it a fair reading of it it's clearly  general intent crime and so for those reasons we're talking about intent to violate the law that's not there and shouldn't be there for other circuits which and to be clear with the government this is not about which is the best definition for harboring because i would disagree with the characterization that this court can consider other juries instructions used in other circuits this really comes down to you because of the evidence in the supreme court because the defendants below no point in time were offering up other circuit jury instructions  so that is what the jury instructions were they sufficient were there sufficient statement of the law we would submit they were also important to point out that the jury instructions in order to convict li the jury had to find three mental states knowing of the status specific intent to harbor which option c i don't know what that means but also for the purpose of financial gain of which she was found guilty on and so there is a loop that it's been alluded to in some cases that perhaps i think it's the damn case clearly dicta but that that is a sufficient sufficient basis which is citing a brief to convict that the government can prove that it was done for we do not have to prove purposeful avoidance of immigration forty's that for the purpose of commercial or financial gain is sufficient and i gather just want to i just want to we affirm that most of this is been decided in you and other circuits there's great cases second circuit third circuit seventh circuit and six circuit have all talked about case dan dan didn't talk about this issue it said look they used the pattern jury instruction and the dan case said you're stuck with that so use it and the court said no we gave you the proper proper care instruction so and that contained the concealment in that case so that's not really relevant but the the relevant fact is that there was absolutely no hiding or any attempt to conceal any of this by by my my client really and i think we we need those bases for the plane err on the on the reckless disregard help thank you thank you counsel thank you both for your arguments and brief case just are you be submitted for