act of the overall hobbs act conspiracy which included all of the activity that occurred that was charging eastern district and it's our contention that by virtue of that mr lee was forced to go to trial in the northern district  in my view your honor would be the latter it's the fact that the overall hobbs conspiracy just charged all defendants including two defendants that have the appeal today with an overall conspiracy to commit hobbs act robberies now was charged as the first overt subsequently make a difference well there's a difference would be is that if there was no overall hobbs act conspiracy count charged in any against mr levy perhaps the government would have a better argument but for reasons of pleading  and it's not totally clear from the government's response why mr lee wasn't charged with that with count three because obviously that count three of the northern district i'm in charge an overall conspiracy which included mr charged up in different districts but this is an unusual case where the predicate acts are overall hobbs act conspiracy and there are tried in the northern district evidence is introduced in the northern district regarding the overall object conspiracy as a predicate after rico obtain a conviction and then under our case small proceed with a substantive count hobbs act or overt ones for the very same of them what's the difference between that and the done is go further than authorised barstow code and all the other came to saying you can you can you can charge the predicate acts in other districts what they've done is take one overall conspiracy and to break it up and to little pieces so they can have against at least one of the venues but they're all conspirators can you can you take that that mole over all conspiracy and go to another district and then charge multiple conspiracy that are just part situation where you have the predicate act can be tried in a different district if you have any cases in the rico context the support from position you just know not not not directly on point the closest change i think that the court judges have to have ask questions and put their finger on what the real issues in this case are and i think that the answer is to allies in the case that the supreme court decided called i think generally speaking the proposition that the ninth circuit and other circuits have held is that there can be a  let's put it similar in the sense if you let me get to where it is a c c u case but what happens in rutledge is that the person is prosecuted both for twenty one you will see it forty six conspiracy and forty eight continuing now i think what's significant about this case is that it speaks to the notion that you wouldn't buy a strict block or group test in making that analysis double jeopardy analysis because if one did one would come to the conclusion that there was elements of a c c e that are not necessary i have to be proved for an eight forty six and therefore there are different client john long was prosecuted for the rico substances and the rico conspiracy he is now being prosecuted for four conspiracies no substance of action no substance of p charged and prosecuted and punished well i don't know that the court has decided predicate act whatever it is i don't think that this court has decided the question of whether a conspiracy i agree with you can i don't believe that mr lew want could be prosecuted for i don't think mr long can properly be prosecuted for any of the conspiracies that are within the case he went to trial northern michigan died when you talk about overall hobbs conspiracy they lay out which robberies are talking about this specify which ones they were and none of those include an eastern district indictment and most importantly nowhere in the count number true that's our position the fact that they use the word overall does not define what cursed in the eastern district none of the evidence that came in eastern michigan in the first robbery trial that one town alone and they put on just two lines that's just unbelievable this case is clearly governed by block murder block were steps the tests started does not apply here is not impact because these are not the same statues you have a specific robbery in the northern district charged conspiracy with the city to commit robbery but the eastern i believe that in the eastern district you can charged a conspiracy is if it involves different individuals to get an agreement i believe that is totally proper if it is the same agreement involving the same parties i think you cannot because that would be the same crime but here we don't have the situation we're talking conspiracy different parties different places this is not even a close case in my opinion the northern district conspiracy rico predicate act those charged robberies are series of robberies and related crimes between two dates elements of that and in rico you don't have to prove a robbery you can prove impacts on interstate commerce an element of rico so again impact on interstate commerce element of rico i don't  not charging the same offenses at the problem arose because of the work overall hobbs act robbery again without repeating but i guess i am repeating they arguments premised on the evidence that there was no evidence regarding these robberies introduced in the eastern desert in northern district that is belied by the record in this particular case the government successfully argued to this record in northern district gate that evidence regarding the amador and the two d s to deify robberies worse but we're going to be admitted through the testimony of andy he didn't only testify regarding his involvement those robberies he testified regarding my client's involvement in the argued successfully that they were part of the overall object conspiracy that and therefore inexplicably intertwined with the conduct therefore they could have banned the testify regarding these these robberies and he allow in the northern district case no the government's proffer was that was part and parcel of the overall conduct if they could introduce a time of trial the going back to the did original question you know is this is this a case where  so it's clear what the government did was a charging manipulation i mean they knew that the venue or they had all the facts they introduce the evidence regarding the overall hobbs conspiracy and then they break it up in the northern district after the five month northern district trial and say oh we can also charge this but it's clear from the evidence from the dates of the indictment all the standards that we look at the starter to now is this that it is the same overall conspiracy that was charged in the northern district and the government and what the government as we say well we can charge that but we can manipulate it you're going to be a saint if the government had not included predicate number one for him it is not a just mean it is i don't understand that i mean can't the government decide out that evidence at the trial and that's why it didn't come in but it wasn't that the government took the position well or that the judge except that the position was not part of this conspiracy