before we start the clock i just have i have a question  then mister priest i'm sorry then mr still really wanted to use two minutes for rebuttal and then use the rest of the time so i think that then that leaves this down to what eleven minutes or so ok all right well i'm going to tell you when that time comes out just because part of the problem is sometimes people get caught up in the moment and then the other council sitting at the table with this horrified look on your face wondering how they're going to get council off so there are you going first are you going are you voice all right so then mr stelly at eleven minutes comes out and you sit down is that right situation where a citizen is convicted of speeding on the highway where the highway sign reads speed limit calculated in accordance with a mathematical formula which is most consistent with the formula utilized in one thousand nine hundred eighty six that's a fair analogy so fair analogy because that's what the statute that we're dealing with basically says as to the firing requirement for federal income tax return that statute says that the farming requirements the threshold of amount is based on a formula tied to the consumer price index the seat p r i and the statute on  how did that person decide that because this is a mathematical formula which on its face must be utilized as just described they haven't even as much as addressed my submit that the ordinary citizen cannot walk through it first we have an possibility because of what i just described no one knows what this revision which one's most consistent that's the subjective test that leads to arbitrary enforcement the wall so it's outright impossible even if we didn't have that problem i submit that the ordinary citizen cannot make the calculation you have to go as i've indicated in the r and also in my appendix you have to go to the department of labor statistics they're based on these amounts of that are averages by the month and then they average it by the year but the average for the years based on the county are well the statu says you gotta use the physical year end in august so now we ordinary citizens got to find the data thank go to the preceding year pick the months add it all up divide it by twelve think compare that to the current is just an ordinary citizens to be be required to go through this calculation to know what the wall requires of them and then we come back to the thomson arms case which i saw the government confusing dunder stand it would lead to arbitrary enforcement so finally i say i don't want this court to be concerned about opening a pandora's box that the court rules in my client's favor  that all these folks are going to say well we're not required to file it will lead to chaos within our tax system the remedy is easy with congress they can cure this they can cure it i should say in a heartbeat but as i indicated in the rats last case when we had the money laundering the currency transaction report decided by the supreme court the statute was held that was held such that the defendant was acquitted and within months i think it  issues in my brief and the government has come back and not said anything to rebut the facts or the law they've said well it's it's the testis abuse of discretion so she exercised her discretion so that's ok the problem with that theory an appointed as expert counsel for everybody and as expert emphatic counsel for patricia in stand before the removed removal now the district court said it was a conditional appointment there is no support record anywhere for that one concerning earnings or wealth and the other concerning the motion to quash plea well stop and think about where we get if your thigh and indigent defendant can lose their lawyer because the district court doesn't like arguments right highly improper so we don't even have a situation where past that i had been appointed unconditionally and at that point in time the court would have to have a l and i don't know how she lost of it's not my fault and i don't think that the defendant should be punished for what the district court didn't have other other issues one of these that page the record search to ninety two to ninety three you can see one of these the other clearly disciplinary matter i had no knowledge of that and that was brought to my attention because somebody told the com punished for something that they had didn't have any knowledge about and well my understanding is the court not so much in terms of you know how but also money coming out but it's going to court all loud to weigh that in terms of whether there would be way and balance whether or not  one of my had no knowledge about one of them i did disclose and the district court went ahead and let me and otherwise there was another one that it was the rule eleven sanction which i had i didn't think of that as being a disciplinary matter up and there second time obviously i put that in i mean and there was no reason not to have by now i was not trying to hide anything but when i say despair action i say arkansas i think squishing or some other ethics ethics body and and the  does not apply that's why i asked for the district court to do and that's what price want to force just fine that she said i'll do that and then when it came down to it and when i made it very very clear that they would these were in conflict course in arkansas didn't happen i mean i've including gifts and loans and with no exception for client trust funds which is also you that's not legal and i had to if you took that period of time in order to raise the money twenty thousand dollars  i think we're ready for the government trust organizations for four thousand to ten thousand dollars each they took in close to five million dollars over about six years and business on paper the trust recited requirements such as an independent trustee but in reality the clients retained all control over these assets they told clients that neither the trust nor the client individually had to pay any income taxes on on these assets that were put into these since originally he was applying to active c j counsel i don't think that she has a right to any particular choice of counsel as a c j counsel so i don't think that would have been here all right and the time she already had something that's selection that's when he came in and said i'll do it for free yes he came back and after he had already been denied pro hockey chase status he came back in and said i'd like back in that case i'll do it under some agreement where i may get paid in the future possibly at that time ensign did not say that she wanted to get rid of her appointed counsel that had been with her for more than a year and he was apparently going to be extra additional counsel for her he had already been i reached a mission for numerous reasons that this court has already gone over that were very appropriate for the judge to deny him pro hockey change so i think that even at that time when he came back right on the eve of trial and i asked to do it for free or for doing it for some additional future compensation she had no right of choice of counsel because she had ethical obligations but it seems that there could be all sorts of accusations about this appointee clients against a lawyer and without any adjudication he could he or she could be section one fifty one and it defines a certain amount it says it's two thousand dollars but it is that two thousand dollars it is it is subject to a cost of living adjustment and so you multiply that two thousand adjustment is necessary it is not really that complex you can go to the department of labor website it lists the c p i for twelve months you have to add those up in divide by twelve to get the average for the year and then it's simply a fraction thresholds for each year in each year it was approximately eight thousand five hundred or so for a single person then approximately thirteen thousand five hundred for a married person was the threshold during these years and the judge instructed the jury on what was the that doesn't quite answer that question right yes i think so  honor the government has not answered the question about the revision of the consumer price index quote which is the most consistent with the consumer price index for county year nine hundred eighty six shall be using quote that section one f subsection five you cannot walk through the formula without knowing which consumer price index to use and the choice of consumer price index is subjective it's the one most consistent with the one in eighty six when they haven't told us who made that decision yes the judge gave a jury instruction based on the calculation the i r s walks through you can bet the i r s did not tell the judge who made that the government's position is all he should be going no more than sixty five well if there is no notice to the citizen as to what that speed limit is it doesn't matter whether he's one mile over or going one hundred  twenty if he's not on notice you got back due process violation lack of notice you got him possibility void for vagueness and this is a criminal case rule of lenity and yes your honor is correct we've all been filing tax returns for all these years but this is a criminal case in which the government seeks to punish my client for sixteen months he's now in prison serving that sixteen sen's and she was not put on notice as to what her requirement two minutes for a bottle thank you to stick with what they say yeah well they do this all the time but it's wrong and and it should be done and should be allowed if they want to rely on one fifth one day or anything else all i got to do is go to the grand jury and say hey  but it's really important when we look at this we look at one fifty one d shifting from one statute to another we've got to well from this says you have to have show knowledge that the defendant was aware of th