rebuttal i'll reserve five minutes for my colleagues so we'll split it half in half i'll take the first five minutes the government will take their ten and then for rebuttal my colleagues will have the finishing that's five minutes not we still don't really know what washington law is about how do you calculate those fifteen or thirty plants right so you are in looking at the mackintosh kynaston decision you see that  they have already established that individuals have standing they also looked at that we are able to have evidence fair hearing to determine what this strict compliance with state law means what the same let's just say if the facts here were come thousand plants not a thousand yes judge my understanding is that all of the defendants are if they're dealing with fifteen and thirty they are they're coming up with a theory where if they sort of they have various clients they amalgamated that they're not in fact in violation of the law right if they had ten thousand plants there be no way that they could be compliant with the law that is in so that's incorrect judge so even if there were ten thousand plants we'd have to remand it yes judge because the earliest in me one thousand i think you have a decent argument at ten thousand and i'm not sure and even even know that a million plants we still have to go back to possibly judge because again we has a designated provider form to provide for a patient a qualified patient then they are able to roll up to fifteen plans for that individual patient if that designated provider has a thousand of these forms then your honor it would be up to fifteen thousand plants but we don't have that here we do not so that's what i'm saying if we had ten thousand plants in this instance yes i don't think your argument would be as strong as with the thousand here there's an argument that you might be able to still be in compliance with washington law i believe we are in compliance with washington law i don't have to decide that here as we don't know what washington  where we would make a a colorable claim that under washington state law the requirement would be to show a prima facia case that we are in strict compliance with washington state law that the time of the mark or the time of the arrest yes judge but he could not but the district judge could also certify the issue to the washington court right because it's we don't know exactly what the washington supreme court's go say we don't know your honor what a first off a washington state prosecutor would even take this case and prosecute it then we don't know whether or not a washington state judge would look at all of these affirmative defenses and all of the prima facia evidence that we would advance to make the argument that we are in full compliance under state law and then next what a potential washington state jury would decide so until the government has a conviction a washington state conviction in their hand or some other administrative ruling saying we're out of compliance this injunction should hold your honor rice and then ultimately it would be judge nelson in the kinison matter to allow the defense to make this call or will claim that yes under washington state law we can show a pr case that we are in strict compliance with washington state law mainly marquardt ok thank you  good morning my name is rural hicks and i represent the united states on this case first of all our position is that they not only violated federal law but they also violated state of washington law and our position is that the state of washington cannot regulate what takes place outside of its borders and in this case what happened is that marijuana plants in the supplies for the marijuana plants were brought from california the purpose behind this was a profit per purpose the government doesn't even consider this a medical use of marijuana case at all if you look at the definition of what medical use of marijuana it means to produce duction possession or administration of marijuana for the exclusive benefit of any applicability because it was subsequent to when the district judge sentenced right yes or in the ninth circuit and we're bound by our own president whether sense that if there were any prime officials showing whatsoever then it should be remanded but this is a case where there is a clear violation of federal law this is a clear violation and the state had no authority to regulate or to allow people from other states to bring marijuana which they had started growing in california to the state of washington and then if we look at what would happen at a hearing  mcintosh i'm having trouble how do i distinguish what they did in mackintosh on the facts in your case because the marijuana came from california and we have significant proof that the marijuana came from california we had  says fifteen or thirty that's it you're under mcintosh well it should first of all the argument of counsel is that everything has to go through the state first that's not required by mcintosh and the macintosh says if that we want to continue it that with the case it has to be remanded we want to continue with the case but we also believe that there are certain circumstances where there shouldn't be a remain and when there are certain findings which are made or when there are certain things that are clearly a violation of federal law now that's the one aspect to it can they even just to clar marijuana or anything from other locations from other locations so if they buy the growing equipment the or whatever they get besides the that create an interstate hook for you to avoid five thirty in your honor i'm not arguing that at all what i'm arguing is the facts in this case the people came to the state of washington from the state of california and they brought with them marijuana plants and in addition to that they brought with them materials to grow but what's important is that they came to the state of washington with the plants they transported them in or state commerce marijuana plants that they had started to grow there and then they continued this is a continuing crime in my mind they continued to grow those same marijuana plants in the state of washington the problem that we have is that all it takes now is for somebody to say that this is medical marijuana and without any way meant let me just clarify one thing so i'm just looking at the indictment in about transporting marijuana plants well california you know indictment it doesn't it doesn't say but those are the facts of the case and most certainly manufactured every intake they're being charged from for manufacturing in washington yes and what they do you say in a saying well i don't know what you're saying with respect to this particular under washington law would not tolerate no i'm saying that washington cannot regulate what's outside happens outside of the state and that this in effect is a continuing crime where you start to manufacture the marijuana in the state of california and then you bring it to the state of washington and you have this interstate nexus and then my arms and say here that each that they trant they conspired to to transfer port between california and washington a thousand marijuana plants well it's included in the conduct it's an overt act in the conspiracy charge it is we don't have to charge you know in manufacture excuse me in manufacture it fifteen plants or whatever it was but the they had brought done what they'd done they come from california so they're totally legal under washington law for what they're doing in washington is purely medical marijuana you say in the five thirty eight when you apply because they move their plants from california  and no there are any cases it's interpreted five thirty eight that way no there aren't and was then why didn't you allege her and in the indictment that that's what you were going after five thirty eight did not exist at the time that we met and i did this earlier that's hers all right now i just want to again what happens here is there has to be strict compliance with state law and there has to be in my mind before you have any type of hearing evidence to make a prime official showing and what happens in iowa and what happens is they can there's no prime facia showing  the record is clear if you look at that that there were very little records kept we asked for the records from one of the defendant and what we got were not the records that they were designated providers at all we didn't get those records what we got were records that they were care we're taking marijuana on consignment and then selling it for a profit now that's the only records that there are out there that we have in addition to that there's an argument made by the defense that all of the defendants were in effect designated providers that's clearly an incredible argument in my mind even you're saying strikes me is that there are matters for the district court to determine whether or not there's a prime if they're in compliance with washington well you can present all of this to the district since you're not going to have in your rebuttal time either there was some question that i think that the other council are going to address about what happens to all the other charges i think there's a limited number of cases that would be referred back under mcintosh frankly i think the government's position is that there even a prime official showing here and that every time that somebody says it's medical marijuana that we should be going through this exercise in the sense that the thousand plans which you talked about that's allow for  premise your honor i appreciate that very much and i understand that and i'm in effect it doesn't really matter in the sense because if the courts are predisposed to do that which i the this interstate transportation is a red herring it's not an element of the offense that's not a crime under the united states code for in commerce of drugs is but there is no element it's not in your model instructions it's not in your it's not in the statute as far as the amount of marijuana i want to remind the court that the low band part of the macintosh case dealt with thirty thousand plants and that was remanded for hearing the hearing the evidence is that my client had three hundred he was convicted in oregon for those four pounds but in washington he was allowed to present the ferment of defense and the and the record should be the gatekeeper just like the washington state courts would be in other words the elements are that you make a prime fish a showing which we have done here that  true the evidence must be most strongly interpreted in favor of a defendant that's washington state law and once they make a prima facia showing it's a jury question the court at that point cannot way conflicting issues issues of fact and the washington courts have acted as the gatekeeper in these cases for example in marquard mr marquard was not able to deliver recounts were affirmed because the prescriptions were or were not on tamper resistant paper in guinn the defendant did not qualify as a primary caregiver because there was no statement from a doctor saying weighing the benefits of marijuana outweigh the health risks and i would like to reserve the rest of the time for mr watso prosecuting the one twenty four c the possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking case if the are not able because this is a medical marijuana case to spend funds on the underlying medical marijuana