appeal on that issue that's been the fact that here we had the opposite where the testifying spouses being asked to testify about what she said because her kirkpatrick addressed that expose your argument really has to come down to either james has the ability to block the weeds from test or he loses he does have that because it's not his admission  there are some thirty five states that support your view and fifteen which do not but as you pointed out at the beginning of your argument it really does matter what the states say the question is under federal common law what is the rule and i'm having a very hard time i have to say i have i thought the privilege was as you are articulating intel i started researching it and now i'm not so sure if i believe the only way you can the only way you can get to the defend against those allegations in a reading the language in twelve and fourteen it covers both taking money that should have been turned over to the property owners even freaky self how are you time understanding why that still doesn't constitute mail fraud if the principal means by which the owner is notified of the use of his rental unit when he lives a thousand miles away is three monthly statements that the defendants realty company sends in those statements are false because they don't accurately report how the unit has been utilized what's the what's the problem  interpret the product to be here completely disregarding of the owners that there's wear and tear on the units as a result of the fact that the owners the people are sitting there for free and they're not being paid for those want you to go tell her that you know that she's feeling now obviously she said i don't want you to tell her what i've told you that is to say keep me out of it but in fact i want you to know th she's concerned about it it doesn't sound to me like she's concerned about her identity being revealed her sister and it's also part understand that if this forfeit actually at all points throughout relevant point struck his case there was no own state but there are traces slightly different factors means d n a in big because there was no objection but here there was no i'm not quite sure what to do with that i mean once facts helps you with facts hurt you but i'm not for the for the proposition that we had a white ferns of a husband's criminal activity as was the case in farah where she is party to the admission of her husband about a bank robbery and then subsequent day or two till you know that aspects of very good reader i think also i was concerned that in the opening statement i didn't want to say too much the other words there were there was a lot of a lot to talk about with regard to this case instrumentally in some way to create to perpetrate a crime and as i understand your theory the conspiracy was to withhold information are under the belief that the reports that they get from their property managers are complete and accurate and if those reports tell them that their particular unit was used for example thr agree it really depends on which group you're referring to because during the period of the conspiracy the entire three year period the crime shifted from taking money from paid customers dad both of those are kind of annoying you know the owners you know it's such a small amount they really don't care about she was making the decision herself that you know a one night rental that's my received that unit these were people that were doing work on mr mark covers property their construction work they stayed in that unit we had testimony at trial the fast track was delivered for those services and that use was not not have been known about five years or so long as it was of theirs they could within the school reasonably foreseeable with that exactly that she would have jack to having their communications sheered with changed from beginning to end is a real question here as to whether the grand jury would have returned an indictment in the format alleged or or argued by the government in closing and that's all