this is the security agreement that he prepared on behalf of mr rios and other officials purporting to be their security agreement and it except some lien on their personal property well i think that the best way to read it in connection with the the financing statement city fargo was a he was asking it was that he was stating that those officers owed a debt to h but what he was actually attaching but it was actually the collateral he was attaching was the also of office not not any kind of personal real product where he professes the security agreement that creates  bonds but he's talking about that support endorse the also office if if i think what i'm asking is the court not to read out the words real and personal property from the statute i don't think i'm doing that i'm saying it's in there he's putting away on the personal property i mean the other cases that have looked at this issue have been careful to look for some personal property that but they were willing to take any any real or personal property well but just a minute isn't that a fight over the validity of the documents it would have rather than whether it really was or wasn't sure who have filed a particularly security agreement and financing statement and you've put those on the record then the next question is not can you just get them off are they not any good but we're fighting over the validity of the documents and frankly that would take money from the federal employees who would take it would intimidate and harass them to have to do something in order to clear this from their record wouldn't i agree and so therefore i guess what i mean the statute itself when i read the statute it doesn't talk anything in error about a valid falsely in or a valid false incumbrance it says any guess at this particular matter we had a jury determine this was real or personal property and i don't find anything in the statute that goes against maybe it's a fine distinction i'm trying to make but that i'm not trying  the lien has to be valid or meet all the technical requirements of a filing but if if he if mr neal asked said that the prosecutor and i owed him ten thousand was a security agreement and he wanted to attach a mr delancey status as a red sox fan and my status as a giants fan he would be potentially attempting to put a hunger in certain lean but not on any real or personal property and my argument is that what he's doing the security agreements and the financing statements is he's attempting old office here i think that's also bolstered by the letter to the mother that he tried to get them fired not not necessarily to obtain any kind of money counsel was not knowing involuntary because because the court didn't know inquiry whatsoever with respect to competency and there was some evidence on the record that the court should have gone there  in filing subsequent they talked about the united states government selling bonds based on criminal convictions and then in particular is going through the details that the conviction bonds numbers air right this wasn't raised to the district court that's correct so we have to find that either there is a case on point which there isn't so far as i'm aware is that correct we have to say that that's the that the error was plain or obvious based on the language of the guidelines as well as the app with the two application notes that they cite one that talked about gave an example application no one was that if you sent several threatening letters over a period of years to the same then the enhancement would apply and by referring to the same victim and the same individual counts a group of counts not nots conduct that occurred in other counts and then second which i think is pretty powerful is that application no four be said that an upward departure may be warranted believe uses the word phrasing departure now because departures departing from the guidelines yes and then there's upward adjustment in terms of the enhancement right application note that i just referred to says that a court departure may be warranted if there was substantially more than the more than two i see there's nothing that says that the court can't almost but not quite i think and that in the reason why answer the question that way is as the court knows from the briefing it used to be that the two rights were the same if you're competent to represent  used to be that you were competent for yourself and that was the end of the inquiry and then the supreme court in the in the end if you had words case said well no if there's discretion you didn't say that you had to apply a heightened standard but that judges could for the right to represent oneself and then i think the best case that kind of describes what to do from there is the ferguson case in the thompson case you know these facts in the record where the district court just felt very uncomfortable with the fact that if it was competent to do both and he had to make that ruling and so there was a reman because there was all this record evidence that the district court wished he ha discretion and didn't think he had it and then and this court we managed to say well now that you know you have discretion what do you want to do i think but i think when this court recognizes defendant had a high school education he took some college classes he indicated that he had studied the law and indeed when he was questioned for friday hearing which this court which is in the record he would actually corrected the judge about concerned about in the garza case even the dryer it's the other thing that's important to recommend it important to look at i would suggest is unlike prior and i believe unlike ours are although i'm not sure about that this is a case where the defendant represented himself he proceeded to trial he made opening closing arguments he cross examine witnesses this is a case where the district judge had every opportunity more than every to observe the defendant's demeanor his pression presentation style and if the doubt had been raised in his mind a genuine doubt he would have jumped all over it virtually no one wants to go to trial and how and have to proceed over trial where the defendant represents himself and unless it's absolutely necessary unless the defendant is demanding the right and he recognizes the warnings under fred and i think in these circumstances there's simply no evidence to support a genuine doubt as to competency it's hard i don't think this court has ever found a situation where someone would have satisfied the light most favorable to the evidence on appeal if the issue was preserved but i'm playing or it wouldn't be preserved and so but what if there was no evidence of real or personal property i mean we have the oath of office but i'm struggling with that a little bit on what exactly that means and your arguments in the brief didn't i didn't really put prescience and i guess because you said somehow that they were money i didn't follow that logic and i don't this is sara lee agree with that if that's true what you are arguing i'm just trying to figure out what the jury had in primer for them to consider as real or personal property that you would normally have to prove when presenting this kind of case the jury had a few things in front of it first of all it did have the the testimony of matthew john the expert and he specifically said that these documents were an attempt to attach the real and personal property of the prison officers but he had to list real or personal property and he listed the ills of office and my not not what he did that was in the u c c financing statement right but i have two responses to that first in the security remains he did let's that language about collateral about on's about this other material and the other point i would make in this was in front of the jury the whole point of a u c c financing document is to attach a lien to the real and personal property of the debtor i mean that's the purpose of the document that evidence was submitted to the jury and  attach that the leading to anything we can cognize as being personal property how can an element of section fifteen twenty one piece as i i think in that circumstance this court would be left with the question that was that your question goes to kind of a central issue in all of these cases this case read all the cases involving false names and that's you know when incoherent i mean that's the very nature of these types of documents and the sovereign citizen arguments that this court regularly sees and that's partially why congress said and the history that the courts want to look to whether i understand the concern and i guess the government's position is twofold first that alene that this type of document by its very nature is an attempt to encumber real or personal property if it had been filed with them or said county recorder which doesn't  depend on the details i think the government might have problems in that kind of circumstance but i think here especially when we're past the jury and where the sufficiency of the otherness challenge when the defense says you know it talks about the best reading or it's a fine and there was no gun under plain error we just say they were close enough i mean there was no evidence of a gun wolf if there's absolutely no evidence in the record of of an element whatsoever now that that was maybe close enough but i'm just wondering i mean when you don't have an element to point to is that established i mean there i don't think it does in this case i think you know if there's no evidence of a gun or to use another example and i think it goes back to the types of harms that congress was trying to so to protect with this statute the statute isn't  protect all kinds of frivolous fine filings that make judges and prosecutors and prison guards angry you know it's not just to protect against some you know a litigant from you know writing a blog and saying that someone  is you know violating their constitutional rights when it's not true and that's harassment it's designed to protect a specific kind of harassment and that type of harassment it's designed to protect is the filing of documents like these in public records and the what i'm saying is i think there's evidence in the record to support that it's you know that it was real personal property we've talked about that but i think when it looked beyond that i think the very nature of these types of documents satisfy the bare minimum of the elements that get us beyond a rule twenty nine a ship that wasn't raised in the district i had a quick question for you on the two level and hanson aren't looks like but then he also got the two level an additional enhancement for two or more lanes based on the offense which i read to mean each count which would mean more than one that there would be one lean more than one thing sent to a victim how do you how do you reconcile that in two with the first way is the government would submit this double counting argument was not reason to tell the defendant's reply brief insiders the court not to re on that ground my second argument that it was double counting no it was not and how is it not double counting because the grouping rules are different than the rule but i mean that you can do both but you don't have an incident here where he said where he did lean more than two for one victim pro one count that's true so you can do it i imagine when you when it's appropriate and you have the facts to support it here you only have evidence of one thing per victim per count so how did i don't know how you get the enhancement i mean at the time you're arguing now that we one group and then none of the others it would have been the same result because it was only three i think it didn't go so far below to have counted a different you know prosecution as for the group that makes sense i'm not sure that it