just i have difficulty saying if the amendment doesn't apply to him then the prior law allows the prosecution well i guess i have two responses the first is that the statute that caution but i don't understand the theory under which they where and where there's been existing law that permits the prosecution until a long time in the future and somewhere during that time congress says well we want for in the and people have it seems like they're trying to take anybody that needed any offense at any time and make the criminal law  can't do that but the colonel law was already applicable to your corner at the time of the crime and after you and without that amendment would have continued to be applicable to him it didn't revive anything that's i guess that's the difficult congress needed to say if you want to move this from twenty five to life then the people the one who the statue of limitations did not they should be included under this new time  i am running short of time here and did want to address the other issues you know unless there are other questions or you may wish to reserve your choice i'll just take a moment here to talk of elf trying good morning again for the record my name is joe packard i'm an assistant united states attorney from the great falls montana office i'll direct myself first to the issue of the statute of limitations the fact that now there is there was no gap in particular in that case as the court is well aware there was an abstention which as to your statute of limitations was extended to three and the court said in that case that was pretty substantial rights it was directed to remedies my response to that is is that i don't think that bridge your goes quite as far as it's presented but the appellant they have that a savings cost necessarily needs to be impose i think if the court is under a bridge you're certainly entitled to look at the legislative history and when the court looks at that i think that it's clear that in this instance the amendment did nothing to to alter the viability of this prosecution with respect to the the second issue i guess and i would point out that of course the court is operating with their views of discretion standards quite well kno i think that when even if if one considered that an error occurred here in the exclusion of the evidence which we do not consider proceed that this is a case with overwhelming evidence of guilt this defendant was given fact wrote a written confession and that confession was presented to to the jury i would also point out that standard goings was permitted to give considerably damaging testimony about her child  facts calling her a liar and i think that when one looks at all the evidence in this case that there's really no reasonable doubt that this defendant committed this crime that even if there was air in the preclusion of any of that testimony it was that limitation on cross examination had the confession and i'm the limitation cross examination had to do with the girl right suggest respectfully that if there's if it diminish and there's there's more cause maybe to look at the confession with suspicion if you know the problems you provisions that were applicable so you challenge you first extension as well as mr whitaker because we're out of the five years we're at the age twenty five at least at the time  know i'm just fine we're going to go ahead that we are connected if you wouldn't mind we're going to go ahead and wait just a couple three four minutes make sure that there are no problems beginning of the last case when we called the first time weekend i have no control over a screen there