we need to get approval they didn't say that they did not think that and in fact the government the purpose again of the fia far is to let the executive department had control their records in this case the government had already given over the but the defendant in those cases didn't argue that there was a problem with reciprocity the supreme court unwarranted forces oregon made clear that you cannot create a discovery rule that is unilateral in that case that was a notice valid by rol and the supreme court and in that case the district court arsenate say that if a court precluded the defendant from any alibi evidence because they hadn't given the notice the supreme court derek said that that was a violation of  supreme court court clearly said that it's not fair to impose a requirement on the defendant when the government may or may not have turned over reciprocal discovery because we don't know what would have happened and as far as the harmlessness were harmless error regarding the agent's testimony there is no testimony more credible to a jury than the feel horrible that i didn't do it but the fact is that the transcript shows might shock and surprise that the government would put a technicality about due process and a fair trial and that i have preferred byron and the court allowed a re the government which stand on the technicality and it really i really didn't say don't believe it's required because i had read act on and i knew that the c f r was very questionable and i really do think that it was a technicality or a formality fourth amendment motion and your testimony will be sought regarding the search of the vehicle so that their recollection is refreshed and that has been how i've always been the t f r and i've never had a problem with that in this case the any point the government refers to section five point forty five of the c f r here refer to sixteen twenty three they were virtually identical but which ones were still i think the government's going to spend five forty five which is the newer one for the department differences because sixteen point two three deals with department of justice employees and the prosecutors are typically department of justice employees as well the notice can be delivered to the city u s attorney who's there because they're members  in the case of a department of homeland security employee that notice is given to the office of general counsel not the a would say not to the prosecutor not to the u s attorney but directly to the department of homeland security they then make the call up to whether or not they will allow that witness to testify point four one if in fact he had actually certain any office of the time was was working for whom the form of homeland security stand if he was called ever witnessed by the government if i had complied with the c of bars and of taine the permission from the department yes so you get your view they even if you wanted to call him as a witness you would have to have done the same thing absolutely wrong or in when you have the regulations well there is no there's nothing in the c f r just simply say when the letter must be received how far in advance of trial for example they do say that the department be given twenty days to respond to any requ the government to get a continuance of twenty days to get approval but i don't understand why that seconds the supreme court did say that in the context of a state that provided for no discovery whatsoever the criminal defendants that is not the case here the defendant was in time to the full panoply of discovery but what  convinced that that's not what you can say seven minutes and forty five seconds we are first of all there is no i cannot conceive of the c f r letter that would disclose something to the government that would provided we spent providing i mean what is it that would be responsive to this kind of are a question that's already been provided writing them well for example if then and again i don't know if the subject matter of agents rod smells rotten i'll propose testimony was his interview of the defendant in setting aside the admissibility of that his notes and everything associated with that had already been produced in discovery pursuant to rule sixteen out of fire it is very correctly it's more than a long line of of you didn't presented a passport driver's license a number of other documents that were children went to school that all came from the government pursuant to rule sixteen that all regarding neighbors other reus regarding roe pointed regarding presumably and again i don't know what he was going to be inquir regulations with the force of law on those employees and there was nothing that would have prevented there's no reason to believe that mr aged right now wouldn't it taking the stand if the defendant if he found it simply complied with the worlds and if the atheist chose not to make them feed today that they in fact had permission for the case by so that makes it one hundred percent clear that the case agent could have testified permission had already been given so the government and the government alone who prevented  position if they got clearance to testify along certain lines and that your request might well be on your line and that they can handle schools for their correct and i would say that the government fears of  the lines of inquiry i might have hypothetically gone into are unfounded because part of my offer proof was and is under seal and just before this court the majority of my offer