this this is actually a very simple issue compared to the first one and that is i'm talking specifically about the condition number fourteen under the special conditions of supervised release my argument is that the government cannot legislate people's thoughts and that's was this condition seeks to do it not only suggests that a person that mr ro not supposed to have associations with certain persons or members but also that he's not supposed to have any membership with any organization that in advocates engaging in criminal activity or overthrowing group remember that could mean a lot of different things and that's what the problem is you know with these youth or don't we and what he did is say for example not to have any association with national alliance members there's no specific defined group out there to which i mean there are defined groups there are area nations and i think i'd be in a different position if that's what this set is this said not to have association for example with hell's angels or national alliance if it's specifically spelled out i think i'm in a different position than the way this then apparently our case passes with him then what's the difference in restricting him from possessing certain types of literature for example if he had been convicted of making bombs what is it your position that the district court could not prohibit him from possessing bomb making materials or instructions on how to put together nuclear weapons you know that would not be my position because i think under those circumstances that was very clearly something that would advocate illegal activity something in general overthrowing the united states government that could be bob dylan's songs i mean there are a lot of things out there all the steps that you know on the books as i recall that prohibits the decision is there or there i think that matters because i think that you're what you're dealing with is a different probation officers and the problem is maybe one person is going to say yes and another person's going to say no and you can go into court and get a clarification you could  think that because of the nature of that a white supremacist member is a person a person who have those beliefs and not necessarily be engaged in any criminal activity whatsoever is there any  they might come to a person's home and so i don't know see the mind calm fi hitler and consider that to be a violation i think under the under this is all conditions this is even in all those pieces though the district court ultimately has to make that determination after the probation officer brings to the alleged violations of the court's attention as to whether or not that particular time that violates the terms of the conviction so why doesn't  problems to that but at least it would be very clear how a person would you know mr ross would know ok if i have a t shirt that's going to violate this statute heard this condition but if i have a so why did why is it i don't know why is it unreasonable when it does because i think in this circumstance in using your example if you have those sorts of things aren't illegal per se there's nothing most things that aren't a white supremacist materials are can include a wide back into the illegal have to answer yes or no i i'll come if you look at the i believe page two of the pre sentence investigation report the united states probation officer who prepared that for specifically referred to paraphernalia she described i believe she does that make us not in the condition you c the the condition prohibits neo nazi white supremacist paraphernalia  if that was written by a neo nazi yes paraphernalia however there's a factual basis for it in the record specifically it talks about tapes cds the distribution of white supremacist report and paraphernalia in addition to the c d s and tapes of high tech high tech computer games for example ethnic cleansing the united states his position would be that that would constitute paraphernalia  i would not argue that paraphernalia is only limited by what set forth in the den of the pre sentence investigation  well if mr ross possessed a book that advocated the overthrow of the united states government or spousal white supremacy or ethnic cleansing that would be covered under this condition bar the government's position is that if mr ross of possessed a book of espousing white supremacy or ethnic cleansing that even though perhaps the judge should have put in books too but paraphernalia is of is a is they felt i would argue that pair books would be covered under paraphernalia we can see if we had a dru paraphernalia restriction in the defense have been convicted of cooking meth amphetamine use of a blue if you were found in possession of written instructions whether for a pamphlet for telling him how to cook the stuff that would be a violation of the conditions yes it would be your honor that would be so if mr ross was possessing a book that gave him such force ninety nine ways to overthrow the united states government that would be a violation of the condition of supervised release plenty of time to think about the answer we had a little tiny bit like the question i think was about whether it's reasonably related and the groups themselves the problem with it's a waste of premised member is that that's not i just find groups that could be anyone in fact as the bureau of prisons to pick here is that i mean we know that this guy was distributing material for the national life since we've got a district judge who sits in the eastern district of washington which is a known heathen for these sorts of groups that associate with any other people who are white supremacist or possessing their paraphernalia i don't see that that's a huge problem for your client to understand what he's not supposed to do well in this circumstance some of the people that are being included include his family so that's a situation where that's being defined as one from patient officers weapons to his father i'm actually surprised that we don't see the father here as well you know this is not exactly an no i'm saying that this is the opposite this is not that kind of situation saying that you can you can restrict someone from having association with street gangs is different than saying people that have a certain belief structure that maybe we don't all agree with but nevertheless it's out there it's not a clearly defined sort of group i mean there are clearly defined groups and if it started that way it's the national alliance or area nation those are clearly defined just one of them being the last time i looked i am no expert on the subject there were a i and ask for the most current task force report identifying all of the known groups that advocate white supremacy in order to me it's a valid restriction we're not writing a statute here we're telling a guy who's been convicted of white supremacist related crimes don't associate with these people right and do we're going to violate the conditions of your supervisors really right and i think that's the problem is it's not clear association would include and i mean maybe a national alliance would but maybe having coffee with his brother also that's what we don't know and that's what the problem is with this kind of condition it's the same as the paraphernalia condition you have a probation officer basically reading this and making a judgment call and i still don't see how this is different from motorcycle without was that all things you'll be easy rider you whatever they are because that this just some sort of membership but it could mean membership of both organizations that do advocate dangerous activities and organizations that don't and i think that that's what the problem is is you have a whole  members including ira members this situation a person could have it could be a white supremacist member of an organization that's a completely legitimate organization for two weeks here i mean