law enforcement officers from creating crime for the purpose of prosecuting it yet mr parnell is currently serving a twenty five year sentence for a crime that he would not and could not have committed without the substantial involvement of the united states government several factors to take into consideration st whether the defendant was already engaged in criminal activity at the time of the government's involvement or whether there was an ongoing criminal enterprise and whether the defendant was an eager and active participant in the crime in this case both of those factors weigh in favor of hell when the government got involved the appellant had not committed any crime so in the fall of two thousand reality the trial court found that his statements of us all constitute a threat and therefore could be considered a crime however the supreme court's decision in virginia v black indicates that prior conviction for threatening to blow up the norman oklahoma police department and encouraged his speech he said things like man your views are all employees and you know that's that's beautiful and and i'm really encourage private conversation with his friend mr ellis but he was also not an eager and active participant in the crime so in january in the government one heard that information about someone who was making these statements and that he could help them build a case against him you know if only he were out and able to do that so he was released he began contacting mr  and spent the next two months baiting him with statements about corrupt government officials and saying things like you know can you believe these judges down at the courthouse and we need to change the world and how to really do that and hey maybe you talked about having tells the agent i think he was venting he's not prepared to act any tell them i've told the agent i think he's avoiding it and the agent says i think he's avoiding you and at that point in time instead of accepting the fact that not a threat they decided to make him one and they made a conscious decision to push and when they did that their conduct became outrageous  conduct here is what the specific government conduct i'm talking about is the fact that they supplied him with all of the materials he needed to commit those crimes and they bomb and they were there when i asked him repeatedly over the course of this operation you know have you got news items yet what are you going to get these items and the appellant either ignored their text messages or phone calls or he responded with an excuse as to why he hadn't provided and frankly your honour's it's understandable why you wouldn't have provided a one thousand pounds of info because he wasn't able to get it he didn't supply one single thing not the glove evidence was presented at trial that he had containers available but he just didn't want to do with the credit purchased the gloves that he sold the agent that he didn't have any money well evidence was presented at trial that in fact he had almost a one hundred dollars in his pocket when he told  agent so he could have contributed much more than but he didn't do it and when the agent told him i mean you pick a date and i need you to pick a target he asked him several times have you picked a date yes have you picked a date yet appellant didn't pick a date they said well how about august th and he said sounds good they told him they needed him to pick a target and he wanted to go to amarillo and scout and the agent said well how about bank  day that they picked him up to go build the bomb you know the appellant had claimed to know about chemistry they gave him hand written instructions on how to but that's not what happened and your honour's when you are considering whether the government's conduct throughout the investigation is outrageous this court held united states versus direct that the outrageousness of government conduct depends in part on a government is dealing with and the account in this case was diagnosed it's a friend now the government wants to minimize that and say that they didn't know he was mentally ill and therefore they should be held accountable for that but the evidence was presented at trial that they knew was early as march of two thousand and seventeen but there was at least an allegation he was to get suppressed they say at some point after that they received information that he was potentially mulling they don't say when that was and what they did at that point instead of investigating and looking deeper into whether he was in fact it's a friend and they chose to go with a version of his mental health that allowed them to determining is his mental health in a court proceeding that would seem to be a pretty good place of something that could reasonably be relied on you don't need to go and nd guess the expert witness demonstrated to the government that he was not in fact taking it and the government's own expert who examined him after he was arrested diagnosed him with substantially similar disorders get so effective disorder reasoned counters were used against him but evidence was presented at trial that when a schizophrenia actually smokes marijuana it can exacerbate the symptoms of their schizophrenia thereby making the medication less that but in addition to that the one you know whether his whether his schizophrenia was under control evidence was also presented at trial but in the early part of two thousand and seventeen which is the same time period that all of this was happening he was trying to develop an javits or mind control so the psychologist testified that he believes he can create something that is not in fact reality and also that someone with his condition has difficulty standing up for himself even w involvement in the defendant's crimes and the district court properly exercised its considerable discretion in its application of terrorism enhanced mr parnell had a desire to commit these crimes and was simply provided the opportunity that we do not agree with that we think that the core outlined a number of crimes that at least arguably that he did commit the state crimes and federal crimes the court found that they did believe that his statements were true threats and arguably transmitted in interstate commerce additionally you have the threat to the government as a whole and then to also his ultimate crime or attempt to his a terrorism charge there was solicitation the defendant is the one that would continuously talk about wanting that team he said that he had a like minded individual and arguably before the government and i think conspiracy to commit a crime i believe there were solicitation to commit a crime under oklahoma law but i think that it can't be ignored the case law doesn't say that he actually has committed a crime it is only a factor to be considered in th if the appellant talks about that we supplied all materials there was a lengthy discussion in trial about things such as anfo deck or things like that why the government didn't want him continuing to make homemade explosive it was dangerous it would be outside our control you had at the under cover right in vehicles with him it was obviously a dangerous scenario despite also the idea that he could go off on his own without being supervised by the of materials i think that what should be seen in this case and i think it was clear at trial is the sides the goal of wanting to start a revolution or civil war and to instigate that by blowing up a building is that the defendant had one clear thing that he wanted to do through this crime which was not talked whether as discussion about only wanting to use burma phones he told me undercover at the time of the crawling so i don't have a problem violating the number i just don't want to use my phone to do it the barrels there are his parents property they're out in the open and if he took them reasonably they would have been viewed as missing things that could lead up to him he asked the undercover about what would happen with fingerprints were they essentially be incinerated when the device went off he asked about not doing things where there were cameras around he was concerned about being committing his crimes so i think the idea that he didn't supply some of the things that recently been requested is also reasonable but again we're also having to look at this in the context totality of circumstances we have to look at the crime of what this person is talking about doing we're not dealing with an individual who's selling very small quantities of drugs on a street corner we're talking about somebody who wanted to detonate a one thousand pound of ice as he described it what the oklahoma bomb went with  know obvious potential loss of life even though he wanted to minimize that he himself acknowledged that loss of life was probable and said you know essentially you got to break eggs to make an omelet and that's why people don't go through these things they can't get that so but as to the point of whether it was objective leigh against the government st there was conversation or there was testimony from the undercover that mr parnell specifically discussed the lack of feasibility of going after a government agency he thought security would be too high they discussed you know for instance n s a and that a swat team would drop immediately on to them if they were doing that so he wanted soft targets the thing that he never wavered from however is that the conversations where he talked about his hatred of the government due to his family's position that he believed that he had been i believe testimony was eft over by the government in this previous prosecution  the object of government quite simply he objects to the existence of the government he wants a revolution he wants a civil war and he hated both sides of the government it election time but he wanted a different government i don't know how more clearer there could be an effect on government than for that entire government to be removed and a new government put in place in his own words he wanted this to start a revolution for the people to rise up in this was the catalyst for that this was the thing that you know no pun intended but that would to ignite this civil war this revolution so to actually overthrow the government i think is a clear showing that it is designed to affect the government in his previous statements show that he wanted to retaliate against that same government he wished to retaliate and praise and you have to and having been prosecuted for his underlying crime so he had a very specific grievance against the united states government what in again but his motivation in getting back i think it's clear on that just because he chose the non government target he still crying was designed to retaliate against those past acts and to affect the government i don't think it is unreasonable to believe the eight thousand pound info bomb being detonated in downtown oklahoma city wouldn't have had in his mind that desired effect an objective leak had an effect on the government   looking to strike a deal because of a revocation of a supervised release that it already dealt with the report that the defense mentions that in february that says that he didn't have a it is i don't think that it's taking place necessarily tomorrow i just know what he said and at the time that mr ellison's knew him he didn't have a car at that time but to say that somehow dissuades government's involvement continue that investigation the discussion concerning his mental health i think that has to be drawn to its logical conclusion even if the defendant is schizophrenia it's how would that have affected him even if the government had defendant thinks they should have gone to his own expert said that his symptoms were in full remission and he had been taking medication for three years his expert also said that none nothing about his mental health actually affected his decision making to go along with this plan and i think were the words and so had f b i investigated it they would have found the same thing whether mylene green or whether actual he wasn't under any delusion he wasn't being affected by anything and they want to ignore the fact that their own experts have said this the only thing his expert ever pointed to was what he called personality traits based on the same subjective testing and people could read their messages he reached out to the undercover about wanting to recruit three percent hers he picks of the bank st building as his target he said he wanted to use the carpet ice that timothy mcveigh had used he wanted to do this in november and by fox today but the undercover testified why they didn't want to wait that long they're afraid to go out on the defendant came up with this plan and was simply provided the opportunity to execute that plan and he should be held accountable as he was by the jury for i see my time's up thank you and you had another twenty seconds because you don't and i think you've i think we understand your argument honest the government claims that if they had not done less then somebody else might have stepped in and bend the person to help him do it but the fact is that when the government inserted itself into what was going on the appellant was lawfully he didn't he didn't have a job he didn't have money he didn't have car he didn't have a driver's license which came out in the interaction with the agents after they don't the bomb so he would not and could not have committed this crime and when the government creates crime for the purpose of prosecuting it when it creates crime that when otherwise her it doesn't deter misconduct it doesn't protect society and it doesn't really belong to a person if this is acceptable government conduct then what meaningful boundaries on police power are there i would also like to add that there was a question previously about whether the informant was an agent of the government and i would like to cla i do indeed think he was an agent of the government based on the fact that he was paid twenty three thousand dollars by the government over the course of this investigation evidence also was president said that he could not get