place and that they had already remained on the premises for five hours and since this small office area it's very and they were as i pointed out in the briefing there were other it was certainly these were not the most credible or honest of agent  of saying the word aircraft or airplane if they'd said your car and he'd said yeah there might be some stuff in my car what with the agents to at that point again i think they would need to get a search warrant i i'm not contesting that u think you might have said that and he said i'm not sure yes perhaps i said that there was in light of that that's just not enough if he had said and again it was no fine that he was not credible the agent on so of course the government argues that there was an imprint argued that you know he was dead by the time the third plane was hijacked on but i don't think that changes the fact that the evidence said that when a question was could you have told him that the log books may be in your plane he said i believe so yes and judge armstrong concluded that that was sufficient in the government agrees for the agents to search the airplane without a search warrant because of even but that's how he made the statement that someone with an eye that is an inspection authorization had inspected the airplane because the staff in the log book shows it has been inspected the inspectors name  and that's precisely what was charged in the indictment and the judge gave the model jury instructions regarding false statements and also provided a copy of the indictment to the jury so the contents of the counts identified a for that did not happen that there was no authorized inspector who inspected it and that the representation of that had occurred was made by mr hayes and he did that by means of forgery and so i really don't think there was confusion at trial about what was what happened here or what the allegation was and i think the judge's instructions combined with giving the jury the exact false statement in the indictment made any confusion very unlikely the airplane but that dangerousness was important because it made it very unlikely that a flaw of that magnitude would have been missed by an inspector so it was important to explain what the flaw was because the government had to prove by by all sense but also it was relevant to whether the statements in the log books were false because it helped the jury determine well because if if unauthorized inspector had actually inspected those airplanes at the logbooks represented the lawbooks when someone forges the name of an inspector on their indicate in the proper inspection they've been done yes crimes complete stablished that all elements of the crime are proven that's correct you need to point out to the trier of fact that these were some really bad things were missed in these inspections so bad that they could have brought the aircraft because the government has to prove that those statements are false and the forged injury that in fact there was no inspection no proper inspection materiality is yes it allows that aircraft to continue to be flight worthy to continue to be in the air that's correct right and that could affect the actions of the f a a and there was testimony to that fact and in doesn't that establish materiality it does but the government if there were nothing had happened to these planes the purported inspection nothing at all the continued to be flight worthy it would it would not have meant that there was no crime right correct it was still a crime to forge that name in the log have been very important to sensing that what does that have to do with the elements of the crime because the government the one element is the government has to prove that that entry was faulty and one way to do that is to show but then you do that when you  signature was forged well we established the signature was fortunate in my view but there was no stipulation of that in fact in the government has to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt and so we had evidence from several directions proving the falsity one point now there was as i said there was evidence from several different directions proving that element but the fact i get it right the number stands that argument if you didn't go to the next step and try to  effects were very serious well the reason the seriousness is important is because the testimony was by the the mechanic who testified about their examination of the plane later was that the facts in their judgment w important to help show that the plane probably wasn't affected at all so they were testifying about conditions that the mechanic thought were present at the time the log books were certified a studying for example in the borman airplane and fifty hours of flight time this problem would not have presented itself this must have been present much earlier in fact a time before these logbooks were signed certifying that the plane was or where the so that helps the jury draw the inference that the airplane probably was not in it or not inspected at all or not inspected by a inspector with inspection authorization so if it was just some trivial small minor problem and it's in there was no evidence but homeport was that evidence would be very helpful to the jury that's why it was important show an inspector would not miss i'm still having trouble getting from the defect is serious to this this is what could have happened if the plane was in the air it will it goes to why the defect is serious for example a hole in the muffler the jury is entitled to and the government can tell the prove were proffering that this is important and inspector would have caught it why because it's a very serious problem it can cause carbon monoxide to come into the cabin and make th part of the sleep and thereby the plane would crash that's how important it is and that's why the inspectors know to look for that but obviously in this plane the inspectors in look for it or or i didn't catch it and so there were several items like that that were that with that kind of and just as to materiality i think that evidence is less important for the materiality element but the government still was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the savings were material there was no stipulation of that a fact and as a judge armstrong rule have been able to admit that if it is i think so because there is i think if a plane actually crashes and we have not just the possibility of people being killed or injured but the actual fact that it occurred there is a greater danger of prejudice in that case but it's the evidence is still relevant to show that an inspection was not done by a qualified inspector but i think as you as the consequences become more real it would be a tougher call discretionary call by the district office to see people that die in the crash it's ok but a fifteen well no i didn't mean that i meant an actual accident that hurts people as opposed to the possibility of an accident which is what we had in this case nobody was actually hurt in this case it policy they had the forgery evidence of course and then they also have testimony from people who said well i didn't see him working on the plane that was sitting around so there was that evidence as well on the evidence materiality they presented an f a a inspector who explained wh