yes your honor whether defendant was a serious risk of flight and whether there were any conditions that would reasonably assure the presence of the defendant at trial the main contested factor here is the weight of evidence so i'm going to quickly address the other three factors there was no allegation that the defendant was a risk to the community or would have to attempt to obstruct justice upon release as to the character of the defender the defendant did not have a criminal record nor did he have a history of violence or drug or alcohol abuse or health issues the government's sole allegation against the defendant's character was his lack of ties to the community which we focus on the risk of flight i think that was the basis for the district court's ruling because of the absence of any ties to the community and so on so maybe you could focus on that aspect  evidence which is the fourth factor and the only risk of flight was the sole allegation of a lack of ties to the community that dealt with the person himself which is fab you gasper any of this wasn't a case where detention was presumptive or crimes of tending to ask yourself for a continuance you know but the government has as provided discovery in i think four or five separate packages and i don't know whether any further discovery is coming from the government  is your client currently have access to the laptop that would seem to be problematic he has upset at access to the laptop but the government has provided a server and the laptop does not have a certain program on its laptop to  be able to access the contents of the server so there's a whole big piece of discovery which which thousands or hundreds of thousands of items that my defending that the defendant my client cannot see or  that you need access to that before you begin trials that might prolong potentially the period of detention well we that could yes yes very well could and it's very important that my client see such things because he is the person who really has the he would depart at his earliest opportunity well you know he at first appealed is actually dishing but then he willfully submitted to the jurisdiction of this court and as is stated in the united states versus to show the case that the defendant by doing of the government's case and oh no not at all that those was just based on the allegation there's been no evidence of any payment submitted by the government there's been invoices which are an itemized they don't have evidence of the actual clicks they have that evidence of maybe access not on a computer but on a network storage network attached storage device which doesn't record anything doesn't have a black box and there's no way of them proving actual auto clicks in their allegations in their indictment the district court in denying our motion to dismiss noted that there was one auto click alleged in the whole entire indictment that's about ten cents worth of autoclaves but the court still held that that was the sufficient or a substantial amount of domestic conduct appendix but based upon the government's representation at oral argument that they were going to bring in more evidence of more clicks that went from the us the us computer to the website abroad which they have not got the particulars from the government you know we have received a information of value was taken the google case which is the leading case from the third circuit on whether this information has value third circuit said it doesn't not only does it internet protocol routing protocols it's a simple ip address or user agent string which simply tells a web page website what kind of browser it has but the google case even went to court even went further to say users internet history does not have any value but even apart from that it doesn't mean he's being charged with  cyber criminal trespass were merely stepping on to someone's property and not doing anything more is like a misdemeanor or something under a two or a four the computer intrusion statutes under a four they have to allege that he gained something of value and he had an intent effecting an intrusion is not a crime and that statute is racked in the p c yonkers case in the third circuit they have a great quote that says mere access is not enough i believe that's also repeated by the tenth circuit in the case of the united versus willis mere access were mere trespass is not enough there has to be something more and the p c yonkers case the third circuit went so far as we cannot presume that information was looked that or taken based soley on like in a drug case that you have drugs in a gun case you have guns you provide that to the defense and defense experts and it requires expertise to properly examine that file the defendant the defense counsel has represented that is retained to computer science experts we provided additional discovery first of all a full expert disclosure report from the government's experts about what is on that server explaining the basis what we expect to be his testimony second further thirty five hundred material disclosed early so that the defense experts could understand how the analysis was done and use the same tools and the next day defense counsel confirmed that his experts do have access to the contents of that server we have made clear that we are willing to produce the defendant to the courthouse to a room in the courthouse where the experts can sit down with him and go through those contents and we've made special arrangements with the m d c so that those experts can bring in their own laptops to the m d c and go through that with the defendant so he has access to that information he has access to his own standalone laptop and i'm informed by the m d c that he's had availed himself of every opportunity to review discovery on that laptop to the extent that he desires out of the twenty days in june he checked his laptop in review discovery on sixteen days and for fourteen days he was offered the opportunity and a few affirmatively declined but this is not a case where the defendant is being deprived of something that he needs is the july twenty fourth date as far as you are concerned is apartment intruded on service is not a crime and so this whole proceeding is defective short it is a crime in a couple of respects first of all the spotlight was created with the intent to defraud and we've shown that we've alleged that in the speaking portion of our indictment and would tend to show that a trial we've already disclosed all of the discovery that will show that so in that sense is a crime under ten thirty eight for it's a crime under ten thirty eight to because the specific malicious files the code that we've disclosed to the defense shows that he will he was seeking to obtain information including password files and we further said in the bill of particulars that he did in fact obtain passport files the extra for report that i mentioned earlier explains that on that server there are usernames and passwords passwords generally are in an encrypted form and the defendant was using a program to try and d crip those passwords and had successfully done so so there's evidence also intent to effect of those the schools that are profiting from the operation yesterday they go to both the profit and to the money laundering we have evidence that in the e mail and from the records of an italian advertising company that the defendant obtained money as a result of clicks on these websites obtain money out of proportion with what wouldn't you would normally expect with a website that is basically defunct is not one that's that's regularly visited and then you see that those same individuals shortly after obtaining that money use pay pal to route the money back to the defendant from your guest arena and we see that money laundering through those monetary records how many servers does the government maintain were compromised on the strictest greeny right now based on the logs from the server that we do have been in and has been disclosed we're seeing it more than one hundred forty thousand servers around the world that checked in with this new jersey server what we call the new jersey server when i say checked in that means the defendant least a server from a company headquartered in new jersey to control his bot net and so those bots would then check in with that command and control server and we saw a hundred forty thousand botanists slightly more than that checking in with that server so the command and control servers so called is based in the united states the server itself its own by a company headquartered united states as you might imagine these companies that use dynamic storage and have data centers