counts so there's there's a curiosity when you're dealing with a conspiracy because the conspiracy actually consists of the of the agreement so if today judge silverman a judge back here decide we want to rob a bank that then our conspiracy would begin today even if we didn't commit an overt act until a year from now when we you know run out and buy our and we submit that that it does not and but isn't that isn't that sort of hornbook law about conspiracy and what's illegal about conspiracy and once he stands convicted the conviction covers that whole time period as a matter of differentiate idle chatter from something that's going to go somewhere but once it's going to go somewhere the idle chatter is no longer idle that is correct your honor but in our case given that we're dealing with immigration law given what we're doing that period when mr olivar took deal of allegiance he was not under the based on the evidence that we have from the trial he was not a criminal he did not commit an awful lot not just say later on something happened that made him a criminal but now that we believe well first of all this it's wholly impractical practical to administer administer citizenship that way we also feel that it goes against the idea that doesn't next week and then we'll start buying the guns and that's ok well your honor you can also decide not to go forward with the agreement and that's exactly the principle that is at the basis of modern conspiracy law that we are allowing we are allowing the person who agreed to commit a crime the chance to go back and and not follow through on a conspiracy because until and unless there is an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy there is no crime but if he if he did now after that point in time if he is found to be guilty of a crime then he is indicted and tried and convicted as an american citizen and he's a pace is due if he's convicted in our you know  exactly what happened he was convicted he went to jail for a year and a day he suffered grave consequences after that period of time and but we believe that that does not mean that he should be deprived of his citizenship when he didn't he didn't commit the crime until he committed the over being involved in the smuggling of persons into the united states and i'm paraphrasing but why or why doesn't it fall within that because it was a conspiracy to commit immigration for who which to which when i agreed to come in at that does not mean that i committed it that is the very basic principle that underlies the law of yours i see your go to a seven minutes i know you want to leave some time for your colleagues yes proceedings like this one it shall be the duty of the united states attorneys for their respective district to institute proceedings in any district court now didn't the u s attorney in this case give seems to me in your argument is elevating form over substance in a big way i mean it would be perhaps a different case if the u s attorney had declined and said no i'm not doing this  reasons why i'm not going to do this and someone else intervened then we you know maybe be off and running but why is something that essentially the u s attorney doing it your honor there are a couple  first the latter it cannot override the requirements that congress has fought for in the statute for whatever reason congress has provided a clearly defined procedure but it doesn't say exclusively  the duty exclusively of the u s attorney i mean we're all assuming that or at least i'm assuming it for the purpose of my question but how literally do we have to read the part about the loss of all that makes life worth living and in that case with them it all we're asking the government to do is to follow every stock that congress requires that it take and we would submit the you have to follow it very literally if this is the procedure that congress has established both to protect the government and the citizen who is subject to being stripped of his citizenship both your right why wouldn't this be harmless error in any of  dealing with the natural light procedure the lack of jurisdiction we would not be considered harmless error we do not know if the u s attorney had to sign his or her name on that pleading attorney doesn't say a suit u s attorney and or his or her assistance if there are statutes that allow well in a first first in on the pleading at thousand the u s attorney's name would appear oftentimes  order someone else if they choose to do so we have not been able to identify a single stack that permits to united states attorney about this to delegate that authority to the attorney general's office actions versus eight u s the fourteen fifty one and the nicest supreme court concluded that and as this court has also recognized and go back to reno the eight u s c fourteen fifty one is the exclusive measure and covers the whole ground w naturalization proceedings and so for that reason what follows is that the congress did not give this power to their friends general's office and in fact all the internal memoranda we've been able to find recognizes that the u s attorney you can name must appear on the pleadings in fact if they were following those internal procedures oil the office of immigration proceeding immigration litigation did not follow its own internal procedure naturalized and it does say that it's the duty of the u s attorney to institute the proceedings in the place where the person resides i'm paraphrasing but  and then we are and he also authorized me are him as well my name is in that letter he authorized me to bring this case and so the bottom line is he he instituted proceedings in this case he and delegated me to do the day to day filing and bringing the case i'd also like to point out my appalling mention that there's no statute to delegate to deal with to the department of justice under twenty eight u s c five seventeen czerny general consent any attorney from anywhere to anywhere within the federal system yes but that deals with suits that are pending and the question here is who institutes the suit before it is pending so are there they're not really about the same topic you'd say but to me while it talks about the interests in the united states in the situation like this it isn't within the interest of the united states to bring at the national that's not what it's effort looking at the tactics of so as to attend to the interests of the united states in a suit pending in a court of the united states so it's not just broad range interests any where they may be followed the statute in this case he reviewed our letter he reviewed the fact that i would be bringing the case review that they did of that cause and he signed off on it he did not delegate his authority to institute proceedings he delegated his  delegated for me to file the day to day bringing of the case what good reason is there that he didn't sign the complaint and then turn it over  practice to put the u s attorney on the pleadings i did not put him on the pleadings but again he instituted this proceeding by signing off on the authorization letter in this case and brought the case that the u s attorney was informed that was going to assess news or trees were informed and after the trial we were the first place we went was the u s or from his office to update them on the trial i met with the civil chief wherever it's worth for future reference i'm sorry i don't have a complaint from you right now but it was under that statute and good moral character right but you have to tell the person the person i see what you're doing and i thought that count one was about unlawful acts and i thought that count two was about moral character and there's facts in support of that because there's no dispute that of arguing this conspiracy before he natural law two thousand and one john that's right your honor and judge plaza are found that and they have not shown they have not shown a clear error in that decision they have not shown that there is evidence to support it and this is that a decision must be a forum for those reasons your honor we ask that what you know if you join a conspiracy very three guys get together and decide or four guys you know get together and decide they're going to rob banks and and then one guy says well i got some other things going on let's fill section one one zero one f's tatchell provision stating that other reasons can be considered in determining that a person is not of good moral character demonstrates a gap that congress explicitly left for the agency to fell and then  chevron supreme court held if congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to sell there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elicit a specific provision of the statute by regulation in such a case standards are good for him so he went beyond those and basically invented a new one and we believe that's not permissible i what it says any other you know that the that there are no there's no limitation of law as  perimeter i think it acknowledges that there is a million ways inventive minds can come up with criminal activity and you can just to numerate them all i understand that's exactly why d h is he said that if you commit an unlawful a be enough but and your argument is that the joining of conspiracy but not committing the overt act is not unlawful act and i would say that that's what the district court has held the district court said that an agreement which under any standard is not unlawful by itself independent of venue for that is enough to destroy good moral character that's what the district court says and we believe to decide what was wrong i would end with one point again going back to the complaint your honour's into complaint this is what the