on the appellant's motion for new trial there after the trout court committed a number of errors any of which provide a basis for reversal and a new trial play if i could ask you a question about that are you asking for a new trial on all claim yes ok even though you won one of the claim that is correct ok i would like to focus st on the issue of what immigrant any support necessary to maintain him or her and an income that is at least one hundred and twenty five percent of the federal poverty guidelines one hundred percent for active duty military the case for breach of contract under the age sixty four courts have held that the amount the sponsor owes the immigrant may be reduced by the amount of income that the him again immigrant receives elsewhere the problem that the district court ran into and the issue that this court must resolve is that income is not defined either in the i eight hundred and sixty or under her watch the district court here rejected the jury instructions proposed by both parties and facts then error or if we agreed with you could we just order those three things to be paid and you would need a new trial but we are requesting a new trial on both both claims however the waive that mister anderson testified there could conceivably be other items that would not be income depending on the definition of income that this it wasn't entirely clear everything that was included in that that there was a number of things additional benefits yes that physical items that wouldn't be considered income that were all options i listed those three particular things because those are the biggest ones and both in terms of dollar amount and in terms of what was testified to that as being important and that were the district court could adjust  but the tuition grant means tested didn't depend on her income whether she would get that grant no the two mission was provided through a service designed for people who had disabilities so it was not means tested it was dependent on her level of disability and the grant goes straight to the school to go to i mean how was it paid you  know i don't know offhand i believe that may be in the record but i would have to double check for sure i believe it was paid directly to the school but i can't answer that for sure on the issue of the friendship could you explain i don't know if you were counsel my guest was representing yourself can probably work out well but you understand what happened with the spreadsheet with it displayed to the jury i don't know it's not reflected in the record as you pointed out miss anderson represented herself at trial i was not involved at that point in time i would also know that it spread sheet is listed on the exhibit list but there's no marking about it being admitted or even being an illustrative exhibit it's just there is the blank box next to it i believe that it was brought up during closing argument but as for whether it was displayed to the jury during  er anderson's testimony and answer it it would be therefore conclude counsel that it probably wasn't the play to the jury if there is nothing in the record stating that it was i think you can conclude that i don't think the issue and what was objected to at trial wasn't necessarily the exhibit it was the testimony about what mister anderson did to prepare  all of that is separate and apart from some document he was using to regressions recollection or whatever it was used for that wasn't shown to the jury the issue here is that the summary that he was testifying to wasn't just numbers that he was remember he was utilizing documents such as bank records he is using it utilizing something from the city of washington d c even using light utilizing documents that reflected the cost of health insurance and that's where you run into the issue because he wouldn't know all those things off the top of his head he would have to rely on documents for them however he cannot testify to the contents of those documents because that is hearsay and she's law is clear that if any one element of a summary is inadmissible then the whole thing is  at miss anderson objected at the onset of this testimony to is a summary of everything that was to follow she said it was often to city which is one basis as well to exclude some of the things that he testified to the trial court however rejected that believe that she was objecting based on something else i'm not entirely sure and said you can argue that however it did not engage in the syrian else this does it show whether it was actually the news of all or not i don't think she was required she did she made objections on specific testimonial answers that what he said was not admissible she did not your honor and i don't think she needed to if she hadn't needed to she would have been of jack ting every other sentence and the court the law doesn't require you to object over and over and over and over and over again as long as you get your point across and i think when these started going into this testimony she spoke so her objection when she spoke wraps said your honor none of this is authenticated meaning none of the things that are listed in this summary that he's prepared are at seems like you're really think that testimony was based on hearsay but it doesn't seem like she made that objection if i'm understanding that i think i believe she did make that objection but that she did not ever articulate it well again because it w yes your honor however because in that was pro se we need to take her a check sions probably so just because she hears the word authenticated doesn't necessarily mean that she was objecting under  that the law i apologized but under the rules regarding authenticity and authenticating documents but was in general objecting to the admissibility of the items that he would be testifying to and given that we must take her objections broadly because she was pro se that the court shouldn't construe these as merely an objection based on authentic kishen your client doesn't buy that she has been receiving was not deducted because there was never any evidence presented about how much those will if there have been a dollar amount do you think they should have been deducted i would argue that no they should not have been a duties under the contract the immigrant shouldn't be using things like food stamps she should be able to provide for herself hence allowing deductions for things like food stamps eight housing benefits and things like runs contrary to the purpose of the i sixty four which is to protect the resources of the government and to dissuade the  from signing these without being prepared to accept the financial consequences of that would be a different approach than just recorded earlier that is correct would agree your honor however i would know that opinion was unpublished and therefore has no presidential value and this panel may decide in a way that is different than the panel in the nd or earlier decision i would like to reserve the remainder of my time and i recommend that at the bottom left of your screen there is the mute button if you click on the word facing arrow next to the mute button second rd option from the bottom is which to phone audio and i would recommend trying trying out at this time so you're not ms miller while you try getting closer to your microphone and say something and see if we can hear that ok yeah we did this yesterday oh i can hear you appealed in this case they were based in law and logic there are two different standards a review on the various issues that are raised by mister anderson to know who is appropriate for the jury of following the law making a clear record and making fair rulings with regards to the definition of income and start off with regard to how we dealt with jury instructions your cards for allowing your rebuttal witness allowing the witness to from that that constitute a windfall and then because he wasn't paying anything for it right that is correct that he was not paying anything for it however that the concern that i have even more so than what your honor points out  appreciate that is the potential for double dipping so it said go back to what the court was asking about costs and and what occurred if she received food stamps or other things those agencies can go back to mister johnson and he can oh mon back so that windfall that that we have here on her is actually the windfall for her in terms of benefits that she was able to get and those agencies to come back to her any reason to think tri care would ask him to reimburse the health insurance amount that was paid for sound like it was means tested so is there any reason to think that the education grant could be recovered from him we are at this point in time we don't know in the sheer fact that we don't know  that need to be addressed is there any reason to even think it's possible it could be that the school or the grant government go after him for the education or there's never a reason to think that anybody will sue anybody  get that information including to get the information about school to get the information about the fact that she was employed when she filed this lawsuit with the u s attorney general's office to get information about how much she was paid when working part of the frustration as in an ideal world there would have been more information but we were working at a small universe of what we were able to get it was only through seeking requests for public information that we were able to confirm for employment with the u know for sure that answer and i don't know that we had all the materials about education brantley simply found out that she had gotten one she submitted her own medical documentation we didn't have complete access to our medical records so she's sol selected some medical records that showed or corroborated some thing with regard to disability but we didn't have complete access that  makes sense could you explain why the attorneys fees them out should count as income from a divorce judgment so state level and because it was a consideration and because there was a benefit that she got in terms of a larger payout and because she spent over twenty three hours consulting with attorneys about exactly this thing  mention of military benefits so very often on the state level they are naturally dealing with these issues of spousal support and resolution of a marriage and in this case m and repeatedly brought have to the or and tried to bring up the fact that this had been dealt with at the state level that there have been a bargaining am for a higher resolution than the state level in terms you have of the amount of my that was given and the terms and that one of the she's purposely chosen not to so that she can continue to come back and i think that's what sets this case apart from some many others because the concept of what is a public charge you can't get out of this obligation for the sixty four dollars obligation because of a divorce or and any contracting around it right well i'm not understanding what you think that the court would have done that would eliminate the obligation that this case is about well well there are some cases that  arguably what has occurred here is exactly that we have someone who came to the country whose employer ball who's been employed who was employed it when she filed this lawsuit which shows to an employe issues there but in this case we have someone who is not a true public church means of public policy reason behind why is sixty four was to make sure that it wasn't the citizens of the united states covering and paying for this person that  thousand and seven and then sheer amended the complaints in august of two thousand and eighteen she had started working and had been hired on april th two thousand and eighteen in the consumer protection division of the attorney general and in fact was working making a base wage of almost three thousand dollars a month so i think that's what differentiates differentiates this case from the others in the fact that appellation a very different she had the chance to talk with counsel and knew what she was waving at the state court level potentially to get a better rate of return or pay out and she always indicated she wanted to be a citizen she says two thousand and fourteen and have the ability to try to be a his that the kind of equitable argument you're making do apply here there are no i can't place here is the amazing thing we're an unprecedented times where we are looking at exactly what we don't want we don't want people coming and praying off of our citizens any more than we want them preying off of the country and the system that we have this situation is a woman who is choosing to not be employed so that she can literally make life a living hell he could be out of her eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars and nowhere in that a page document all of us said yes you may have responsibility did it ever spell out the dollar amount that he might be responsible for at the end of the each year so that people are informed and they're entering into a contract a rd party beneficiary contract if you work it will work but as i understand that it's a lot to ask at the same point in time we ask them to screen people coming into our country to make sure they don't have mental health i think the saying mental health issues that could cause danger for others in our country to do that for all their immigrants that come and i think this is a reasonable joke anderson went to file a motion for summary judgment scott chose not to address the legal liability of any of his affirmative defenses were counterclaims therefore all of these argument that argument as a part of an effort to seek attorneys yes so are you asking us to rule on that now about us provoking one file would follow or could you just explain how you understand the procedural posture of the yes i believe that that this court would rule on it now and under the th circuit local rules the application for a fees would be submitted after the horror issues its opinion is it possible that you could litigate that later we didn't decide whether it was frivolous now you can make a motion later saying that it has been yes that would be possible however i think for the purposes of conserving judicial resources that it would be most effective to adjudicate that issue along with the rest of the  now as far as this claim goes that is employer ball and has chosen not to seek employment that issue is addressed head on in the  th circuit opinion in lieu the same issue was raised by the sponsor and they are that under the divorce decree that had been entered in state court that she was the immigrant was obligated to seek employment otherwise she would be entitled to a spousal support how ever the th circuit said that there is no requirement that unemployable immigrant seek be employed there is no duty to mitigate damages or and i age sixty four claim the only defenses ar offset and the four conditions that terminate the i eight hundred and sixty four as it was in the statute and because the obligation to seek employment is not something that is listed in that position yes it is my position unless one of the you know unless of course one of the other conditions that terminate the i sixty four comes into effect that yes there is no obligation for my client to seek employment while she remains in the united states there that is not a requirement under the statute is not a requirement under the contract and the contract only terminate how much spousal support would be given this court said it that doesn't matter the divorce has no effect on i sixty four because the i sixty four is a contract between excellent advocacy it's really a big help to us that these are difficult cases of this case the andersen case job be submitted on the record in the panel will issue a ruling in due course but thank you and that i think leads us to the conclusion of our