like to dispose of a couple of issues first i trust that the court has received my twenty eight day letter that i submitted about a month ago i believe that the court's decision in united states  discretion on that point you did although i think that united states versus mine goes further it seems to conclude that exercise discretion to admit such comments is in fact improper that it's both hearsay and presented the facts of the state magistrate one one factual point that i think i did not make clear enough in my brief is that the only evidence introduced a central issue in this case which is whether the evidence should have been suppressed i believe that there can be no serious argument that w officer carson pursued mr jackson and ended up wrestling with him finally catching him that he he at that point had warrant was legal and the evidence comes in and is making a difference about the initials i don't believe that makes any difference ultimately and that's that was the conclusion of the district court that that by the mr jackson was subdued that that there had been sufficient sufficient intervening misconduct by mr jackson to give the officer probable cause to make an arrest at that point believe that there can be any serious argument that if an officer runs the plates on a car that catches his attention for whatever reason and comes back as not being registered to the car that they're attached to that the officer then has reasonable grounds to make i did not receive the twenty j letter from you a little i apologize your honor i'm my voice cut a little lower because i'm a little angry because i did not receive a copy of what counsel supposedly submitted to this court so i have no idea what she's talking about with regard to that issue which she discussed at the beginning  officer to stalk somebody around town for two days because they didn't stop m command in answer police questions is flabbergasting to say the least what happened in this case was mr jackson was talking to his neighbor police officers came in because of a complaint about the neighbors when he they stopped mr jackson going out of the parking lot and he declined to talk to them and for the next two days after carson stopped him looking for him just because he didn't want to talk to the police and you know for the most part police officers don't act not right it just happens to be this particular police officer and not only did he exaggerate lie to the magistrate when trying to get a plea and trying to get a warrant but he engaged in behavior in still didn't come up with anything against mr jackson he called other officers and brought a drug dog and they didn't find any drugs internet around  and yet he was still looking for him days later when they stopped him on the tenth they still didn't have reasonable suspicion to stop him they had no basis to stop him and then when he didn't immediately comply with the officer's commands he pulled a gun on him and of course he was scared of course he ran and that's what the government is arguing is this intervening behavior more than the government arguing the district court made a finding that there was an intervening cause so that it raises any problem with the initials and without intervening cause they had a right to control the defendant because he was well on a control and that's it and in the briefing and that that there are problems with that with charging somebody when their fourth dimension significant for them arguments and as the supreme court stated that the organist would race significant concerns if it were construed to apply to police those that encounters this defining wearing versus state and barrow's versus state if the ordinance applied to situations where the police have no objective justification for seizing the person to define quality of be had to be contained by the police are you objecting to that factual finding i don't recall that being exactly the factual finding that was one exactly the factual fun and that's what i was just reaching for in my head and i apologize i