would be surprise well normally that's true except in this case there are a couple of underlying assumptions that i want to draw the court's attention to and would distinguish this case from that line of cases number one  it's not entirely clear that this is a new threat though the briefs more or less conceded that and even below a judge read and assumed it was the new threat well doesn't have to be a new threat  quote yeah i asked him about the threats he had made in his workbook and then he went into his reasoning for wanting to kill the president especially what you have here is an agent of listening a confession or an elabor ation of why he made the threats in the workbook so they're not new threats they're an explanation of all threats that he made and frankly i did not br i am making it now because it's true one paul did not elicit new threats and a fair reading of the record he soliciting a confession and an explanation of the old threats second the second way to should have known after an hour's engaging link in conversation and this so called even if you assume it's a new thread for the sake of argument this so called new thread coming only after a thirty minutes approximately of the agents trying to induce in my judgment a fair reading of the record now mitchell in the chill there's nothing like that in mitchell the person is arrested at the hawaii at the honolulu airport agents have received word that he may have threatened the president they go to him they say is your name mr mitchell and he immediately makes a new threat there was no no evidence that the agent try to induce a threat or or made statements that were go oh well this way we have here an agent deliberately saying i am not going to read this person miranda warnings i am not going to do it and i'm going to see i'm going to see if i can get a new thing to get presumably you can't have agents deliberately violating miranda and that's what happened here no miranda warnings at all so in that sense your honor if i did answer your question it figures into the calculus of the principle of our agents going to obey the the miranda rule is there going to be an evaluation of danger to the president exception to the miranda rule there hasn't been one yet i know there's no murder novo standard of review you have to decide whether a reasonable person in mister mr lincoln's position it's an unusual task but believe i have it correct what would a reasonable person in mr lincoln situation believe that the person to whom this was sent this letter was struck with construed as serious as a serious threat to kill the president of the united states for the evaluation of the threat well as i understand the test it's a reasonable person in lincoln's position that lincoln but it reasonable person in his the way i read planned parenthood though that was a civil case it's not an odd way to phrase it but that appears to be the task and that is the test then you have to take the so called reasonable person and plunking down into o c c prison i mean intensive confinement unit you have to make your mentally disabled by handing the mentally challenged person who can't spell who's virtually illiterate later that it doesn't have any law all right let's let's let's accept for the sake of argument let's accept that we look at the context and that's what planned parenthood seems to suggest we look at the context what is the context the context is six months earlier yes he made i can see it's right now i maintain it wasn't a serious threat but nevertheless it was a threat he said he wanted to kill the president of the united states that was a threat but he's not indicted for that threat he w everybody is going to be killed including you there's not and we have judge reading finding out finding as a matter of fact that it crosses out from the thread and you can see there are three ingredients crossed out the pronouns us and we and then he is dissociating himself from violence unlike what he did six months earlier so yes if we look at the context but the context is all pointing towards if you will he's getting better he's now taking out his frustrations if you will in the appropriate way to napoleonic away in his ability his mentally impaired ability his learning disabled ability he is turning if you will from a true threat there he's taking the proper course now this isn't a part of the letter i agree it's it's distasteful disgusting it's screed but at least he's writing he's taking an approach of if you will writing taking redress of grievances he's doing what every other patriot has a right to do for those reasons you're wrong or even in the context i submit that this is not a true threat if you consider everything together it's threats that were simply something else first of all that wasn't raised before judge read and i don't think it's fairly raised in the briefs and they say the defense never grass and mr levine is one of our one of our finer defense attorneys and i've never known  so i wouldn't jump to that line of argument for those reasons but secondly if the court will look at the transcript the actual verbiage that was used by mr lincoln appears the excerpt of record page thirteen and that's where he said he was planned that this was definitely a reference to a future event planning to travel to seattle get a group of people together travel to washington d c stake out the white house and choose the president through an open limousine window so i think that's a response to the to the theory raise this morning secondly i think that mr levine is correct in interpreting hannah planned parenthood as the fall from the sender and in the planned parenthood case and bank this court held defining true threat as a statement which in the entire context and under all the circumstances a reasonable person and i think the reference there is to the sender and i think that's clear in the context of planned parenthood which of course the would be interpreted mean i think the standards position refers to a reasonable person and i think the reasonable person standard is used to embody the objective standard as well i mean i think they are sort of one and the same i think when this court uses that kind of language a reasonable person as opposed to say to the person like mr lincoln or an objective standard that those are intended in my view to communicate the same thing that this is an objective standard that that's subjective  i don't know i mean i think i think it's the same standard for ask from a different different viewpoint but i think what the court needs to do i would submit would be to look at the language of the threat and to determine and whether or not a person standing the receiving end would do would interpret it consistent with the language and planned parenthood and maybe that's why some of the other circuits some of those cases cited the government's brief have looked at it from the perspective of the recipient rather than the sender but i don't know that that distinction is critical i think what is critical is that it's an objective standard and if i may your honor just a few just a few points i think the law and the facts are pretty well set forth in the breeze it's a factual predicate is the april fourth interview and in the september two thousand and one letter i believe it is an objective standard i believe that planned parenthood hannah and roscoe all stand for the proposition that bush in context of the earlier statement that i'm going to travel to to washington and shoot the president through an open window in other words if there was some ambiguity in the latter when you put it have to admit that we don't have quite the pattern and my position is simply that we don't need that much of a pattern you don't need the planned parenthood let me of poster death poster to get to a true threat that the statements months and i'm hoping the court won't see it that way that we used the prior threat because it did give context to the latter and i don't know that that's terribly unusual in these kinds of cases but i think to get into that is obviously getting outside the think the first amendment consideration comes into play your honor in this way if the words of the letter taken in context are a true threat then they are outside the protection of the first and then i think this is the judge found that the apply the first amendment to the literal words of the letter your honor but i would apply the first amendment not simply to the literal words but also to the literal words taken in context i mean without some cont these cases wouldn't really make much sense and if i can just very briefly because i see i'm getting close to the ending a couple of things your honor in a brief comparison of the verbiage in this to other cases where were true  found in the bell richard eight circuit case you will die in the next six months in callahan's essential reagan and bush be assassinated in this court's decision and gordon reagan's the anti christ i will kill him in this court's decision and merrill kill reagan and then again reagan and before i run out of time i want to comment only very briefly on the secret analysis and which which is simply that i believe it is very clearly distinguishable seeburg involves a police officer t statements about past conduct here unlike seabird this is agent talked with the defendant admittedly without giving miranda rights but the defendant then made statements which by themselves are new crimes under this court's decision and mitchell which was an illegal arrest after which a defendant made statements and then the gorton case which really almost mirrors the facts of this case it's in its seventy one a presidential threat case where miranda warnings were not given this court found that with respect to the statements which were new crimes the exclusionary rule would not apply and i think that there is a colossal argues that there were new threats at all don't think that i don't think that that argument can be made on the facts of this case i don't think there's any evidence it's very clear and the agent succeeded the government can see that then you can see it's number around of warnings weren't given but this is the sort of conduct that mr levin speaks to i don't think is support speaker or writer is going to do the harm as a threat can a threat is a communication that the listener in the ninth circuit would interpret as a serious expression of physical harm and that can come from another person in the same way if i decide to write letters to to and attorney and say you're going to die because one of my friends in the arts is going to kill you that's a threat and equally disruptive a but secondly there's letter itself there's a threat and there are references to bin ladin but it's not completely kept clear from the text of the letter that that's the only threat that is made i think there is that you will die too real soon george