futurists morning good morning me please the court there is ample evidence in this case that any reasonable person could find my client was a drug dealer beyond a reasonable doubt however the status as a drug dealer is not a crime and what we have here are a series of arguments which may appear technical i think form the backbone of ordered liberty in terms of the process and so that i want to put that into  perspective that the first argument we have deals with the question of a conspiracy and a plea agreement there are two prongs to that one is the agreement itself and the other the conspiracy charge whether it's a buy  fair contractual concept and what you're saying that when a person enters into a plea agreement they're giving up something they're giving him a right to a trial or giving up a right to go to jail and what was really happening there was at that time he thought it was putting behind him somebody and they come to me and they say we've got a plea agreement got a deal what does it mean you would say what nearly it means what you've done at this point is over look forward however at this point if once smoke a joint afterwards the whole deal is off and what amounts to it is saying that there really is no deal in the sole discretion of the prosecutor there's not even a standard of proof that the given the any offense after the date of this agreement is while you condition of release you provided any intentional false information probation and focusing on the first paragraph committing any offense in this agreement the obligations of the united states in this in this agreement to criminal defendants not favorable to the government so yes it could be that prosecutors can overreach they do and they can abuse their powers but courts exist to deal with it this is not one of those cases and looks like you're engaging in the jury found in gauging sales of oxycontin seven times money laundering several several times but not an abusive use of that but if i can state that there is no evidence which picks which one of the other so you've got four charges and it's a guess whether he is guilty of any one of those there is no direct evidence tying it there it i here who was clark there was your client there was hackney who was i his is his buddy up in vermont and then there was a guy who received the pills and in such quantities is as they weren't for personal use so we're talking about pretty clear evidence of a conspiracy here book but even that right and the buyer seller an argument you're making is designed for a street sale between a user and i and i  the dealer that's not we're dealing with here well i think of it your honor is projecting a general economic civil business transaction on it and of all the cases i've seen i've never seen anything with less interaction between the parties other than a sale and by that he kept his business separate and their credit refused here that's that's usually an indicator that i did it not just the buyer sel product i think they'd be shot i don't think that's what the word at least that does mean to me but the word conspiracy means i recognize that and saying that it means that it it indicates that this is not a buyer seller exception that's  don't i'm sure that that's not the strongest point i have in the brief ok but we're not ever stronger point when it comes to the the shipments themselves you make the argument that the my snail mail the others were sent by overnight now but the you have forked for the liberties and the evidence is that some of those were without pills some of them have with those of the people doing they were selling drugs they were trafficking in in cocaine and oxycodone whereas this particular conspiracy involves only and also anything to the criminal defendant a criminal offense known to the government as the date of the perhaps having him in doubt sites is an overstatement i think agent that said he would have heard of mr forrest as being an associate of other persons in the burlington area who are known to be trafficking in oxycodone and cocaine he also had heard information to the effect that mr forrest was involved in renting cars for example  behalf of these people he was associated with was there any evidence of who he was involved with at the time of the original indictment the original plea agreement i was not involved a case in that time conspiracy the director if you didn't know if your records but often argue or as a book has this as a supplier and usually your customer the record below does not really speak to that point your honor that's all i can say on that point mr hackney had previously been prosecuted by our office so he was a known quantity so to speak but whether he was known to have an association with mr forrest the record does not speak to that and i have no personal knowledge but in any event as your honour's i think pointed out during mr lang rox presentation this issue need not be decided because the government believes the defendant clearly reached the the plea agreement and therefore any non prosecution pledge that was contained in the agreement was void now tell me is it your view is that your view can also that once it's breached you could bring in the early of behavior which was the subject of the police agreement we believe the expressed language in paragraph eleven of the two thousand and thirteen plea agreement permits the government to prosecute mr forrest for any crimes in fact i'll just quote from paragraph eleven which is on page four of the governments that when the appendix the united states will have the right in the event of a breach to recommend that the court impose any sentence authorized by law and will have the right to prosecute him mr forrest for any other offenses he may have committed in the district of vermont period so yes i believe clearly we could prosecute mr forrest for any crimes that were  pills she was aware of packages being sent to mr hackney in vermont by snail mail that contained innocent items but whenever pills were sent to vermont according to her testimony they were sent via express mail these seven deliveries that underpin and the distribution counts were all express mail packages so the entrance from her testimony is that each of those contained contraband  and six of those packages by the way had bogus sender name and sender address information and as we set forth in our brief surrounding the receipt of those packages by mr hackney there are substantial cash deposits by mr hackney or persons in vermont to mr porson bank account supporting the inference that those deposits were  proceeds from previously received help packages thank you for your reply just to very short point one is on the conspiracy situation they have knowledge of it very simply they had knowledge he was doing conspiracy yes that was the is a member of a conspiracy but his is supply chain and who who is dealing with could have been entirely different people they weren't specified in the earlier investigation he didn't plead to that with the question is there's no question that there is evidence of a conspiracy after that date that separates the situation before hand and what we're objecting to is the fact that he could have been convicted on the evidence before and brought a charge that was not a valid try to because he was acquitted maybe and was the relief there i mean i think that we have to structure some sort of i think we did doesn't mean that he didn't do the deed means the government failed to prove if if leaving in some discretion and just say this prohibits further crimes that period we know objective only that he is committed for the crimes not who who likes maybe even the government out of the equation who makes that decision is the prosecutor is or hearing is it i mean the just the fact you say it doesn't make it happen and that was a jury a jury made a finding made findings here in  the go back to the point lemming is if if the jury had made other findings what would then the government have reached the agreement the jury's finding that he did means he did the jury's finding not guilty doesn't mean he didn't language has some holding and that's and that's that is that is not oppressive and it not contra justice then you still have to have somebody or some mechanism for making the decision whether there's a breach and right now it says it's the sole discretion the prosecutor and where do you move from that and you move to a judge you move to a jury verdict do we have a special verdict saying if it's a preponderance he wins if it's a decision and valid question could arise in a case in another case here your client is a crime way basic problem is my next case what do they didn't have to overreach in this case but they could have indicted him for what happened afterwards that they went through for superseding indictment is pushing it forward and the that's basically thank you very much we have your human thank you very