phone calls in the case with regard to the first issue there were six telephone calls and and one text message that that's relevant to telephone calls or played intercepted telephone calls or played a trial between mr jackson to a point if you read that statute yes under the statute they can probably get it but that's not really the issue here this big state caps cite a lot of federal cases from the different circuits that say it's all right for federal judg is sort of the fundamental understanding of our public in the comedy between states could the commonwealth of pennsylvania nap a statute that allows us to arrest people and i was the state of pennsylvania progress people in california could they enact a statute which allows for service is that the pennsylvania statute is things surely unconstitutional because of federalism concerns federalism concerns makes it an authorized on the fourth amendment to make some arguments that relate to title three but as i understand the crux of your argument goes to the jurisdiction or the jurisdictional basis of the state archives right but i'd suggest those federal cases are is the key here isn't the key here is is not so much the technology and yet the intercept under the definition applies be closer to pittsburgh but it seems to me that the key to rather not the state taps report miscible as they relate to this case is state court the state of pennsylvania could not go and arrest him in the state of texas well they might not be to go to rest them in the state of texas but what happened i'm sure in this case and in many other cases even a jackson may have been in texas at that time there must have been activity in pennsylvania that involved jackson's phone that resulted in the application for electronic surveillance which was submitted to the superior court of pennsylvania i think that's right that to authorize wiretaps in other states now looks to me that under the law a fear reading of the text and the definition intercept is that so long as the actual listening post was within the jurisdiction of pennsylvania it's permissible under considering a law well but then we come back to camp pennsylvania and act the statute allows them to go and arrest people in the state of georgia they may through a judge and jurisdiction in georgia to get the extradition but they would go through a judge in pennsylvania to get approval for the electronic surveillance my problem with your argument although it's academically and interesting  so close to the border that by analogy the united states going into one car different country is fairly analogous to one state going into another state but the listening post here the interception is taking place within pennsylvania right isn't that the writing texas and they are hijacking the conversation to take it into pennsylvania high as suppose the united states could hijack a conversation mexico to take it i think you have an interesting argument not saying a correct argument but i  agent seven times on the stand to interpret the different phone phone calls both the phone calls jackson were involved in and the other once one of the the agent would be asked what's going on in this call who are they speaking about describe the call to the jury in fact one exhibit a he said and he goes on to say this describes the entire conspiracy and that's when the phone calls between arthur gilbert and the defendant there was an objection raised prosumer really impropriety her and one of the things that we need to see is c circuit same same sort of situation they had cooperators testifying so i guess it's a question of whether the just the testimony of the cooperators would would be a harmless error in other as i'm not as wrong as whether or not the device we're listening post is in the jurisdiction the reason that matters is this intuition falls within the first half of two thousand and five eighty three and we know from twenty five sixteen in section two the states are required to follow both state and federal law i read that is a reminder of the supremacy clause almost a soft preemption type statute it's essentially telling the states even th law is not you know explicitly preempting or occupying with field you can conflict with it and so i think that's right if you look at the federal state you do with the state statute all you have to look at the federal statute to make sure that the state definition of an intercept doesn't conflict with the federal and that brings us around to you but the constitutional right to make that he's making now which is i would answer just  his personal knowledge under seven to one was set forth mostly at the outset of this testimony and that's at pages sixty seven to one hundred of the supplemental appendix so it's maybe times when he's testifying in tr reason it is so long in large part is i had to argue for each and every one of these through and preserve bears what mr jackson was supposed to argue that he didn't argue with the implications it is not arguing it and then finally i had to point out why it wouldn't matter even if you had argued it because i can't rely on this court to apply gonna every time but it really should it seems like the court doesn't mean it wants to but when it's particularly interested by an issue it will just sort of sh hundred eighty eight that the government knew or should have known that this testimony wasn't valid to call countryman repeatedly to the stand seven different times i mean that that was how they is playing error when the government keeps doing it again and again and again you know  certainly think the trial counsel had problems with son of some of country man's interpretation restriction no there was i have to concede the word it was absolutely no objection or after the fact before the fact with the testimony and unfortunately that's why we're here on a plane era standard but on the other hand i think the and we will take the matter under