the trial transcripts and i was not i didn't know whether the court whether the three of you had copies of the complete transcript so i wanted to point out that there were one hundred twenty eight to the records that were not provided to the court by the government that the government cited in your position is that this is properly excerpt of records and whatever was filed i have this but was in the wrong place no no this is a separate issue findings been interpreted by an appellate court on the issues that are being presented here and i think that factor alone substantiate the argument  hundred fifty hundred seventy years ago hundred years ago when the west was being developed and there was vast acreage of land and they were all kinds of conspirators who were attempting to buy up the land at low prices and resell it to were for sale and they wanted to buy it for themselves we don't we don't deny that that was their goal they wanted they wanted the privacy of the death of the desert provides and to that end he would tell potential buyers his opinion about the area in order was a true threat involved or whether there was just the self serving somebody who wanted to make sure that nobody else was going to buy that property you know he can get the property perving  leaders or then making statements to some of the black people who would not follow the boycott you know who you are we're going to break your neck we're going to let you know that you won't be you're going to have problems in this so the question is mr castle statement if you buy the lot and build on it it will burn i will see to that where where does that fit in the under because he is trying to use his powers of persuasion and he got angry and i i submit to the court that perhaps it wasn't tactful perhaps it wasn't diplomatic but i believe the court must examine your position is to eliminate property is sufficiently violent threat to qualify as a threat which is not allowed by the intimidation element most of them really did provide a specific intent to intimidate otherwise you can get into trouble for you know for  been ferrying it out of the action and that there has to be an intent and intent element provided i think there's also something else wrong with with the jury instruction that concerned me and i think that the the use of words in conduct that would put an ordinary reasonable person in fear or apprehension for the purpose of compelling or deterring legal conduct of that person and i am really concerned to my husband you know if you don't take your antibiotics you're going to get pneumonia and die and i'm not going to take you to the emergency room i am trying to intimidate him i'm trying to make him fearful about his health condition and i'm trying to compel him of the testimony the jury believed and if the jury really believed he was going to burn down a house or house was never built on a lot that was never but the fact remains mr go buy a lot nearby and moved there and lived there and was living there at the time of trial and wasn't fearful of doing that if there are any more questions i'd like to read to reserve for minutes to revitalize the council we'll hear from the that he purchased lot one hundred five because of the way it was to chew ated and because of the fact that in fact he could build his house far enough away from the defendant so he wouldn't have to be exposed to him mr goulden clearly indicated they did not purchase one of the seven because of the defendant so simply to say that well if you look at the facts mr goulden when he had purchased a lot anyways ignores mr good's testimony the defendant cites numerous attacks to the statute in this case constitutionally the defendant court that are in fact infringed upon but couldn't and did not happen here the statute here is very clear the statute varies defense counsel states has been on the books for i believe almost a century and has been addressed previously in the purpose behind the statute as an indicated in the fact there are verses for cases where defense counsel state was to protect the government interest in land bidding process is the defendant chooses to portray this as something that's somewhat historical in the fact that it would not really be enforced anymore of these individuals and the beliefs these individuals have in their property rights is stunning and mr cell is an excellent example of that there can be no question is what mr conceals true intent was here he did not want anybody to buy the land around his or whether or not it was for a profit motive or whether or not it was for his own personal enjoyment doesn't matter he did not want people to buy it and in fact it cannot be disagreed with that the two victims in this case the g snapping and told them what they told them things about the property that they subsequently learned run through the fence counsel raised in a brief speech he talked about the fact while the renard's went over to have dinner with them later on but mr renard made clear the reason he accepted the dinner  to sort of see what the defense was talking about and whether or not these claims were true anywhere and they were false so now we have the defendant not only running up to these people being very aggressive yelling at them asking them pardon me what i believe what was what the hell are you doing on this element of the legal definition of intimidation is to cause a reasonable person hearing the words to find himself or herself in  twenty one thirteen the bankrobber statute which is a crime of violence and which does require some type of force or intimidation in order to accomplish the taking from the institution the intimidation necessary here is different your honor and i believe it was very i think they're both parties to them if they purchase a property and the question is whether that's something that well i will see to that and in fact the gooden's stated that they didn't buy the property because and both witnessed the stated they didn't buy the property because they felt intimidated now mr bernard who is a forty year law enforcement agent and this relates to count three which is yes he was now in presenting himself as well as whether or not a law enforcement officer would have been intimidated by this conduct i'm very skeptical about harmless error and first amendment criminal challenges and i want to read you a passage from virginia versus black intimidation in the constitutionally describable sense of the word is the true type of true threat where the speaker directs a threat to a person or a group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death does the jury instruction in this case satisfy that requirement well the jury instruction to answer the court's question the jury instruction does not include the language defendant has to by intimidation hinder or prevent a person from building on land that could have been through i threw out a negligent or part was not intending to intimidate people but to just using talk which was  instruction in a criminal case that didn't have intentionally or knowingly as part of the boilerplate charge i've not heard one well i believe your honor in general intent crimes for instance in a rape case you don't have to prove th well i don't think the instruction would allow the jury to come to the conclusion that careless talk is sufficient to satisfy the statute the instructions says it's it is the intimidation is to make a person timid or fearful it tells the jury that words and instruction that the court provided they did jury instruction says it is intimidation and defies invasions to make a person feel chamber fearful and conduct that would put the ordinary person so it does require that in fact those intimidates another person and by that intimidation prevents them or stops them from purchasing the land that satisfies the statute and perhaps the language of the statute is defense counsel even stated when she first started her argument was it's a very broad requirement but then when it comes to charging time it's ok not to mention intent i think i have a hard time understanding government's argument well i apologize for being confusing i'd i wasn't intending to read to save the purpose of the first amendment the inten and looking at the evidence in that in the light most favorable government it can be no other interpretation of the evidence except that that is exactly what mr goulden decided to do so the court's question is yes they even though the spin the content instruction if required was not given it's partly he didn't say i will burn it down he said if you build on this property i will see to it that it is burned down so those those words and conduct again getting back to the language of the instruction show exactly what his intent was there can be and i don't think defense counsels making benefit of knowing whether he intended to put them in fear of the property damage right and it's that's her argument i would submit that that's not a reasonable argument given the clear state of the evidence but and  bodily harm he could be fairly courtrai by threatening to burn down the house if somebody was in it but he didn't say that he just said threaten bodily or threaten to burn down the home requirement of intent to commit a criminal act so fundamental as to be fundamental i'm not susceptible to harm the server analysis i think to be candid with the court i'm not aware of any case that holds to the contrary or from the defense time is that error so fundamental as to not to be just not to be in the area of error which we can evaluate under a harmless error standard evidence is not fundamental the evidence was presented to the jury the jury ruled beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant satisfy the statute and in fact the intimidation was present to say whether or not i mean i want to be candid with the court i don't want to say just is incorrect what mr goulden ended up buying was he but it's not through the government auction but he bought private land in the same area and he bought that before the auction occurred and i think it's very i want to get back to this point that whatever it is that mr castle said or didn't say he did not hinder anybody from bidding on land at a public option which is what the on who's holding placards who's picketing are protesting the policies of the bureau of land management they're right with this if they do that at the time that there's a government option they can be a timid ating people who are coming to the auction and statute and that the statute does not provide any minimal guidelines for law enforcement which would allow unfettered discretion on the part of law enforcement and i would submit to the court that neither of these  were provided for in the statute intimidation combination unfair management or not to find there were no guidelines as to what the law enforcement people have to determine in order to prosecute criminally somebody under the statute and i think that you know the third aspect that was raised was the impingement speech and i believe that there is a very strong first amendment issue here i think speech themselves the listener the audience of walking a way of determining for themselves the truth or falsity of deciding how much credence they want to give to it and i think that that that burden has to be distributed as well to the listener as more so than to the speaker as in terms of the harmless error first of all the alsop instruction that that's