however there is no real foundation to the information contained in the launching this is by some individual in france who what usually have logged business records when they don't speak and if you don't have the person who made the record there you take t it's page one sixty two i was going to also address any issues that you are as i have regarding the jury instruction instruction that was given at the request of the government all right thank you very much good point that when i don't understand is why they just court just didn't photocopy the front and put that in to have attention not put in the note was was that discussed with the district court it seems to me an easy way to take care of the well the purported foundation was laid was permitted to testify that he submitted this document to a person who identified himself to him as the chief of the civil registry and who say that this person then took the document went behind him looked in a book came back and said this document does not is not court would not the testimony of the individual provided it's not subject to objection with the testimony been sufficient it was prejudice of the document coming in i don't believe so first of all of a record it was incumbent upon the government in order to demonstrate that this marriage was false that these marriage certificate which was presented which was prime aphasia evidence of the validity of the marriage was in fact a false document occurred or existed would have been the subject of such a record in the agency that diligence search was conducted in the files of the officer agency and that such a search failed to disclose the rock record of the matter so he had no familiarity with the record that he always strikes teachers and she has experience with foreign documents he doesn't believe that this would quote translate well with the other jurors can i can i i understand we've we've read the brace for you know we know what your arguments are and that but if there's a more fundamental points we need your assistance on the first i'd like to ask you is we know from the record that these people has vanished surnames was there any step elation they have stated i think it's probably a holding that ordinarily therefore surnames alone would not suffice for a batch and challenge and the discussion if no one of the case points out that people can have an hispanic name let's not have an ethnic mix and not be a ethically hispanic how do we get around whether or not a prime a face your case has been made if we have held that the names mexico i didn't say she was hispanic while she's well she's from mexico i believe in spandex including the compass is the country everybody in mexico is hispanic yes is that right so that's right that's that's my border that are that are in this i i'd even met one this last week and so your view and my view may be different but getting to the position if we don't have a presumption how do we get across the crime of quote we don't have that here it isn't a plausible explanation she made a finding that there was a sufficiently neutral reason as to each juror is that different from from the  in your last minute so that last night right that's all right you're not in a position to help us any then let me go to the next question i want to raise with you and it's this in most cases where the district a makes a finding but counsel feels it's insufficient our law requires counsel at that time to object and to request additional specific findings and we do that for good reason it's right before counsel it's time to protect your client called to the attention the district judge let the district judge make the finding up or down right or wrong this case it's a little different i don't think there was and you can correct me if i'm wrong that there the jury that was the only objection made at that time a lot of which i haven't read says that she she has to go further and test the credibility of the government that that actually  is the prosecutor's clean and pure that finding wasn't made the only finding was a lesser inclusive finding that there was fission neutral reason if we apply our general law that at that time it's incumbent upon the lawyer to ask for additional findings on the issue then we would say that that issue's been waived and i want to find out from you why shouldn't we not you have a responsibility to make a record for your client for appeal and if you don't ask for additional findings beyond these object and ask for additional findings i wonder if the issue's been wave that's what i really need to find out i don't believe it has right or because the issues that we're raising here we're we're we're presented we're actually there the facts the facts the facts that the grounds given by the prosecution for the challenge of these two jurors in question the answers that they gave the fact that other jurors had similar backgrounds but were not struck by the prosecution those facts are are clearly on the record and we believe we're in the mind of the court when the court made before she didn't require a promise they should case and it is frequently the case that the court just turns to the government says what's your reason and the united states stated the reason there in court for these two jurors counsel make the other jurors were similarly situated and that's not correct there are other there were other teachers and i do like to exclude teachers and there's some reasons for that but when i look at that if a whole group were teachers i'm going to have to pare that down and that the court rules on the ultimate question at intentional discrimination well i think when i understand all i am i think when judge gonzales heard the government's explanation for striking these two particular than the next paragraph the court says we hold her to defend its original objection to prosecutors allegedly discriminatory print three strikes even after is not with the prosecutor's gender neutral there was a gender question general neutral or gender  explanation imposes on the trial court an obligation to complete all steps of the bateson process without further request encouragement or objection from counsel so it sounds like you know it becomes another so what do we do and it was and of course she didn't have the benefit of reading it when she was trying the case because it was tried before this was just so i reckon so i don't know that it can hold or to that standard i mean i think she was operating out of what made an actual finding that showing by the prosecutor was not adequate that if you look at the top of an iranian people struck that's the explanation didn't hold up here we don't have that situation could  one and got to number two and in cases where that's happened before and we just assumed along with the trial judge i did judge about whether in fact in fact the parts it's missing here that's required under linus is a determination of the prosecutor's state of mind she needs no more record for that along with what judge nelson is talking about does she she she knows the record she knows what was before her it isn't like this happened fifteen years ago that's correct why without why would we not provide the opportunity of having her look at it with a new case which step one argument you know of any cases where we've gone back to step one was a district court a skipped over to get to step two now we never get to step one and that's the problem you know we always give step one and then the judges routinely i the the michelin documents and the the false marriage certificate document and both counsel hung your hat upon crawford and stated  that you know this is a crawford violation the problem with that is their objections as george wallace asked the question their objection below in a stated in their briefs was a hearsay objection there was not a confrontation clause the sixth amendment objection made and because that was not made under california were says green it is forfeited it is white there is no confrontation constitutional issue before th in the actual log book there's a cover page that goes along with those six intitled record a person now and it's a record of personnel from national gives their names their employee number their nationality their fockers certificates clearly states that these documents were prepared by somebody who had an obligation there is no obligation that the manning teaching director have personal knowledge of that information this court has found out on numer says right that's why it's not in this is the say it's not admissible for several reasons the records that we're talking about here are based on it's as if a legal citation if i were to walk across the hall to the library and say i want to see them a gal case that three thirty five that third ninety five she could take that information and go and find that book pull it out and turn to that page and if it were not defense had this information from the time the defendants were indicted sahlins of you to router were included in the superseding indictment in november of two thousand and two the case went to trial in january of two thousand and three at no time did they make any effort or complain that that was an inadequate foundation they had an opportunity to subpoena the custodian of record if that were a problem they certainly subpoenaed other witnesses from algeria and the fraud the rest of the factors in the evidence presented by the governor more than sufficient to support a conviction on that count for example the defendant claims that they were married when they came here what we know from the evidence  requires ninety days in a the list of the date of the divorce is may fifteenth the divorce those words would have to been in tone three months before which would have been feb fifteenth they appeared before the consular officer at the american embassy in algiers and swore that they were married and they took their application is that he was bringing her to the united states asked his wife when they showed up at the port of entry at los angeles they told the immigration inspector were husband and wife they have changed that status by fraud and the jury had that information and all the facts that surround that and show that that was not in fact the case there is no record of their divorce challenge now from that comment and having been there what we were looking at was the impact and the only way only logical way that we could have raised this issue where all the parties be sponsibility of counsel we can't estimate or speculate it has to be something better maybe you're going to get around it because judge gonzales gave you the point and went on the step to but i don't think you're going to be able to find a record direct reference was that three of them appear to be seem to be of hispanic descent so i also want to clarify the record with regard to what was preserved below with regard to the side by side there's there's simply no way that you can draw the information contained in the letter based on what's contained in this law she i think if anybody tells you to do that during the trial there would have been speculation required he was not a person with knowledge for the same reasons he had no background experience or knowledge of the recordkeeping system and therefore was not in a position to testify that the document was what it purported to be the government certainly have the opportunity and could easily have complied with the requirements of section i know two subs three and a little three ten by simply getting