the pure instructions when in combination with the verdict form represents the jury being given a list of the numerated offensives that is incorporated in the elements only attack a certain number of those affirmative acts in my claim very clearly there's a couple of them that are unassailable and are very very evidently affirmative act  you know mr farmer would have to challenge his indictment to fuss about the kind of issue that i'm fussing about but if he's concerned about a jury verdict is incorporating an invalid legal theory valid legal basis you know with my situation is different because the idea was incorporated into three when the instructions list the affirmative acts yes or no yes ok but not in the elements instruction as such it's by reference point and so to be the rule twelve issue that's required to be raised in rule twelve and by the way i don't have a good cause that's not an issue here at all for getting around  of has to be reasonably available and has to be an issue that could be resolved without the jury trial and i do not see how those characterizations can be yes i think it has to do with the nature of this issue so that an ev what we're dealing with for instance the claim that the defendant utilized his the tax defense network to  what the affirmative act description is going to find that i would begin to judge would say i can't i don't know anything about your case i cannot watch this does not have any context well that's why that is designed to conceal goods tax liability or in the abstract that does sound thin but then when you look at the facts presented here against his father who is an accountant after years down his tax returns and is an interesting and said he doesn't use his father in fact he uses this group of florida who know nothing about his usual business operation or his usual flow of and what we've usually seen in the flow of this person's business was not seen it was not the fact that was occurring in his later practice there was a difference in how he was conducting its business there was a difference but i don't see where the ira wrestling to look at that in terms of determining what his the best of the best accounts and there still been tax evasion because the account is only as good as the information in the account and that is one of the affirmative acts is that he did not provide the information the kind of error they contemplate that has to be a mistake of law so where he says oh i had to wait to see what the evidence would be of the affirmative that means he can't get within he can't put the camel through the on the senate that it is very clear as far as the affirmative act and he's focused on the one about his father as judge briscoe's said in the context of this case if it is very clear that was an affirmative back and a third number of reasons not only did it when you when you say context of this case that here adopted an idea that we have to wait to hear the evidence before and would not it all again i would say what he's saying legally it has to be insufficient he's asking this core this panel to do with the supreme court in speed said it's not going to do what the tenth circuit has said in bold so in that there is no a limit on what can be acts which again goes back to rule twelve and that's why this is a simple application there's no other questions up get back to thank you and thank you both for your argument case and submitted court in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning