so we had a lot of conversation but i know you all take the position you know we're the troll and we're in a sense but you have the struggle ego that is use all the time and if that's not testimony of or expert information saying the actual words used by mr jones and mr kendricks were related to drug people i'd sold them surrounding context and specifically the timing in relation to jones's other drug dealing activity so specifically the relationship between the timing of the contact mr kendricks and talking to other people about drugs and then the i guess false allegation  conclusion that mr kendrick was agreeing to meet him to provide something at this drug dealing location so again you know there are cases and i think it is true that you could include expert type testimony or interpretations of that nature in an affidavit but we don't have that here there's no i guess interpretation or definition of those words themselves and say solely on the context and once you correct the false statement regarding the cont the entire basis collapses and that's why those calls no longer provide any support for the probable cause fight me and i think that the main cases i would say to miss getting in the work that i think are the most instructive in this regard false statement in that case the court found that probable cause would no longer exist without bad information the remaining information was that the police had confirmed or take a little bit of specific house and that an  especially not that he was using it to engage in drug dealing with the evidence of that would be found on his own and some of the one for the recklessness issue the reason i argue this in this order is because the materiality and the court has said that when something is critical to the probable cause finding is a clearly a crucial piece of information and an assumption or inference of reckless disregard for the truth can be made and in this court  commissioner had said that those transactions would be classified as securities and that actually turned out to be false the information that the commission actually provided was that it was a qualified opinion that they would be classified but there is no formal classification procedure and in that case there was no testimony or evidence about why or how the asset the science ended up including those misrepresentations whether it was intentional or they  recklessness conclusion when you have a situation like this where there is a number several misrepresentations each of which independently undermines the basis for the probable cause conclusion for the relevance of each piece of including both the preserve issue regarding the january deal limits identification and all the and preserve changes regarding the wiretaps we're still left with an affidavit that has sufficient undisputed facts end of the matter and that is what you get your core down below when analyzing this in the context of just the january deal nothing about the on preserve arguments regarding transcript changes should affect that because they don't change the central of the individual transcript changes or the mistake about erection of the call but that's not the frankston under franks as applied in the circuit and elsewhere we make the changes with both any false statements and any material that looked like a drug deal and jhelum told the customer that he didn't have the drugs to be flushed and he needed to meet the people and then he didn't respond back to the customer that he was going until after getting off the three hundred that look to judge mondo like a drug deal which was how we determine children between recklessness or thirds is innocent or negligent steak i think the answer is to look at what was available to the people making the statements the time and here i think there is a false statement underlying the assumption that any difference between special agents are snow's transcription of it and the subsequent trial exhibits must have been the result of arsenal's practiced that's not correct and i don't think it's fair to understand their speech patterns their sound and they're always there idioms and more importantly they had a chance to explain to him all of the code they both friends and family use of long term acquaintances and they were using that's not what frank's assist to do and more importantly even if our sonos mistakes were reckless as to truth or worse none of them were necessary for a finding of cause because the he  about relying on drug lingo that you ask judge haynes i don't think it's correct just because by chalets arsenault made mistakes as the individual parts of the transcript under the direction of one call or some of the questions directly with the speaker that we toss out everything you said in the affidavit again that's not the frank standard he may have been wrong about who said which words in the call of the gas you probable cause is that they were meeting up if you look at the suppression hearing judgement was so focused on the substance of their conversation that's around the record is sixty nine dollars where she was clearly looking at in the context of what they had already seen investigation which was jones going to kendricks house in the middle of a deal and she was able to take special agent or sonos statements regarding the window even out going wrong doesn't mean that he can say drug dealers off and say bring me one without saying one gram of crack cocaine so those interpretations still stand and the fact that they were all there the material changes the transcripts doesn't change the high level narrative that when jones needed drugs jones jones reached now the government doesn't get to rewrite the affidavit one false statement from hype and that's made clear promoted again in order to go to the court looked at the seemingly and ultimately what was considered to be a fairly innocent mistake where the agent said that he learned something from a c and it was actually relayed through another agent and they didn't say ok well we'll use the part of where he's learned the information but the substance of what the ts reported they strike the entire conduct where wiretap records can be selectively quoted and missed all good and no information be a limited but basically support this incriminating picture and narrative against the court doesn't have that's many false statements and made this many inaccurate in and provided so are you saying there is some point to be determined where there is accumulation of mistakes and then that's going to translate and just sort of say well based on the number it's got to be record says you can't just be sloppy or whatever where is the line i think that