was toward my name is terry ryan i'm the attorney representing the defendant in this case a case arises out of an arson that was investigated by federal law enforcement authorities involved the church known as the suburban pacific northwest church and the defendant robin lamont's through counsel stipulated two series of facts in this case and entered a plea of guilty to the charge contained i believe in count one under eighteen united states code eight forty four small i arson of a building used in interstate commerce but he reserves the right to appeal to this court the issue of whether or not  finished serving his prison sentence he is he's having some problems adjusting to the outside world but my and yes he is i represent him in spokane on various matters time after the conviction was there and the motion made bail in our court i don't believe there was i received this case later on or and and there was  nother attorney that was the trial court attorney and the last three for the government if you can call it that was filed on june fifth two thousand troops and was there any effort made to get an expedited hearing  i'm sorry to hear the last part of it it's certainly not the way the legal system operates to decide whether people should be convicted after they've already served their parents well the trial court denied the motion your honor and  appeal system and they do have a system for expedited feels and it works fairly well never been involved in a case that i felt needed to be expedited in the federal system but i have ins ok well i don't want to get you from your argument young well i think jones kind of sets the parameters and then you've got the other cases which were referred to both council last week that take little potshots at used in interstate commerce and says that the building must have been employed for commerce and not merely a pass or passing or past connection so that kind of sets the tone and then all the cases that the court not only be commerce but most of the interstate commerce and the reason i mention that is because it really just opinion and it courts from other cases but in the text that the court is writing it doesn't really use two wor me the stipulation was that if this church served members in five states received natural gas i think one of the cases said natural gas was just a passive activity is insured issue it had the language that is critical to me out of jones in addition to the language that judge brown i just read where the course says referring to the verb use  very clear in the jones case what i would like to discuss is how this case affaires the test case chalons obviously the first inquiry in the jones case is what the function of the building is a contest of that's building with the church not the function affects interstate commerce and then it has to be an active use of that building that affects interstate commerce i guess i just want to make it clear with respect to the second prong what's the function i think the function is a religious function but i think that the function also includes the aspect of providing services to members of the community whether they be spiritual or community or educational those kinds of things that in fulfilling those services to the community the church receive activity you can also look at its activities in terms of providing services to members and i wonder whether for instance we've intruder any speech by ministers commercial speech rather than the ordinary commercial purposes because they raise money from their parishioners rishon whether then friendships pat robertson and all the people we see on television should be judged by the cases that apply to commercial is that at some point fundraising the church could satisfy the commerce clause if it was extensive enough to give the church broadcast in a multi state area where the radio or i would feel the court might say there's a commerce clause connection even though it's it's not commercial in the sense that that's right art maybe it's suggesting it's religious fundraising but it might be enough but clearly the supreme court saying the use of the church has to be what's affecting interstate commerce so what is in this church what use of the church has any effect on interstate commerce even to make that fund raising could be the the autumn case where it was minimal connections they only had a handful of publications they only had two donations from at the state almost the pastor's brother i i think we can look just at donations we have to look at membership and whether or not they travel actually to perform or to participate in services this case is also publications that they send out if he's published so they have a printing press in the church to they law has evolved and we should have an opportunity to really examine some of these back i think it's clear that the jones case says this is an individual case by case determination that has so high to each case so the facts are critical in a determination for instance in the jones case the court there's not a home office situation this is not into that indication that there was a location of commercial activity you have to look at the specific facts of the cake and i think the gumption to have an opportunity to further develop those facts of the case in light of the supreme court case of challenge and in light of other circuit decision i think this case is distinguished from the annex situation because i think in the alec case there was an annex that was used for sunday school services and board meetings but there was no proof of interstate travel if we had interstate travel here we have other activities going on i think that the terry case it's very significant in that while the majority opinion said religious primarily that function is not alone  because of the language used let's just case and i think that since the aggregate no longer applies on the ninth circuit we should have an opportunity to further develop so suppose instead of two years you've given this man five years and you get your first two years and  as the court was asking questions of the government there was some discussion about travel and if you read the stipulation there's nothing in the stipulation that says anybody