with the discussion that we recently had in the case about you know preserving arguments not just generalized issues everything even remotely related to a conviction instead greet every case greenside it is a conspiracy case and they talk about background being narrowly interpreted as the evidence necessary to complete the story stand you've got him saying that's i don't live there that's my house i'm in that house and then they get the warrant they go when there's no indication that anybody else is taken in his yes part of that at least laying the foundation for a proper purpose here was the government making a representation to the court about what the of those was that the government paid and this was repeated twice and appellants appeals great the government paid ten states one hundred dollars to you for his help in this case and part of the reason they did that was because he drove steiner to the historically accurate way to respond because they just don't have anything to do with the criminal charge you still haven't explained why it's relevant in any way to a straight up possession charge that this guy was arrested whe arrested on an unrelated charge how is that relevant to any aspect of any element of the crime charged this the scene where it is not does not directly prove any element of the crime charged but the government's decision to do this i was fine and you still have not answered for me the question how was raised again by your state this is what this report found the district court made a statement judgment about admitting this evidence and maybe for background information based on the government's representation that but for this outstanding state warrant the police would never have been like the sky and that's just flat untrue i how can you rely on what the district court said in that respect well i think again the i need that part of the transcript as saying that the entire story of him having this done with his plans to  led us to him and then based on the tip we got a search warrant and we found some things and subsequently when he was taken into custody he made a statement which alleges to his basement and we had a search warrant and we got some things here without without ever saying that the reason that she was arrested was for to be a complete fortuity but there happened to be one that issued the day he was arrested in which the cops only news going to be issued that they because they had been in touch with mr stamps for a week i mean when you say you have to have some context you can tell that story without ever saying oh and by the way he's wanted by  on other charges can't you well i think that if you're if you're telling the story of his his arrest you know you have to explain why he was arrested he wasn't the search happened simultaneously to the rest that's why that's that's the problem was and they were just going around this is not to say you have to know why he was arrested the short answer is no you don't have a wise rested it's not relevant to anything in the case and you still haven't explained and maybe it's because it's unexplainable why it was important for this jury to know that there was an outstanding warrant on a separate charge i don't think it was necessary for the jury to know it but when we  defense when you when you say that are on the run statements are really another way of saying he wasn't there was an arrest warrant outstanding for him because he didn't show up for the hearing is that corby evidence that was improperly made i don't think that that was preserved but i don't think that it is will for for be evidence at all i think that it's not evidence of a prior bad act it's the prior bad act is not showing up for the preliminary hearing the fact the idea that he was on the run is the know i agree that it was not essential to directly prove any of the elements but i think that it explains why doesn't it well tell the story of how he was arrested of course of the investigation that was really a focus you know and again this is this is already admitted into evidence but the defense if you look at the cross examination that was the focus of the defense what were your conversations with mr stands right you know he was the one hundred dollars for this help what you know these this kind of cont of different parts of the well first i don't think that there's evidence on the record that they were found in different parts of the house i think they were all found in the basement one piece of evidence was in the pocket of the pool table one was in a bowl and also in the basement and i think you know increase as the suppression in joseph facial challenges to the indictment are also listed in rule twelve be three as challenges that need to be made before trial and it's not really different than joseph it should be treated the same way because three out puts them in his truck and he's arrested there are two counts charged count one is the three guns in the truck that he's just taken from the barn he's going to use as a part of the sale count two was the twenty one other guns that are left reaches the statutory question i think it's important i look at how the great framed it was whether congress intended to make possession of a particular firearm an element of my twenty g when simultaneous possession of firearms multiple thought i heard you say in response to judge well that's different issue or different question if that's a different question then are we back to the point that you can preserve the composer this argument because the argument was made that this trick work about