incident that we are challenging on appeal would be more properly characterized as an innocent prior act and as an innocent prior act it lacks probative value when i last wrote a value for other reasons brought it to that a minute why do i say it's a prior innocent is the senate indicated that he had started a transportation business to transport workers to fields and so forth at about the same time so what would have been at least somewhat to establish that well maybe he wasn't just transporting transporting farm workers but illegal aliens that's a good point your honor that this is not again until after the prior incident started by does he apply for licenses in april of one thousand nine hundred seventy s prior incident occurred february one thousand nine hundred more or less contemporaneous i mean within a couple months perhaps but the facts of this prior incident are not at all similar to the offense that was charged and why do i say it's not similar for one this is an individual giving a right to somebody for personal reasons there's no peculiarity millett if he was going to get money for it he met his friend in san diego his friend who we knew who was in the country illegally his friend i had another friend he gave me both or either stopped at the border checkpoint it turns out one of the individuals had a green card but it wasn't his now i know as was not able to immediately discover that this was a false green card they had to in fact examined fingerprint they did a fingerprint analysis before they figured out that this one individual had a green card that wasn't in fact is now the government has this theory pure speculation that's not even the most likely explanation that available examined that other person's green card and knew that it wasn't that person's green card because that green card was from somebody in his friend's family and the reason why they go and they get this evidence because of fourteenth april fourteenth a letter a saying in two i now ask which says which expands on what happens and in that letters of ala says i knew the other i knew my friend i asked the other individual for id any showed me a green card upon layers of error the only reason why this evidence came in about the letter is because the government introduced this surveillance letter into to the jury it was raised to the jury this letter you could arguably state the party and mission but it just thinks it stinks because it seems extremely unreliable and why that because he was under compulsion to write the letter and to get his car back as strongly probable that what he said in the letter is not in fact true and very probable the misters avail never asked anybody for any id he just gave these people ride and he lied about it in the letter to get his car back that's why we usually don't let stuff like this into evidence but it came in and in this case now why and another thing we have to look at your honour's is why is this prior incident similar to the other incident the infinite i was charged in that was charges all these individuals in the van who were smelly the government says the van is overcrowded but in fact all of the illegal immigrants had seized every one of them that the only person who stood in the back was one of the drivers there on camp third dirty and the government point to all this evidence saying ok this is how we knew that these people are illegal none of these factors are apparent in the one thousand nine hundred seventy incident i mean there's a van a minivan a different event is involved that's one similarity but that's not very significant there's no evidence in the one thousand and seven incident that anybody was smelly the manse really wasn't overcrowded there's only three people on it there's only one person in it who wasn't paying it was used given his friend a giving individuals a ride when he had a transport business that was in place who happened who turned out to be illegal where is the logical thread the connection here i would submit that there isn't but that's not the biggest problem here one of the conviction or still have evidence from an agent have personal knowledge of what happened if it's in iraq here nobody had any personal knowledge nobody remembers this incident because it wasn't significant and so what they had to do was get an a to get on the stand who had no independent recollection and read what is essentially a law enforcement report into the record standard black letter law that you cannot read up we should court for the record it is not a public record in fact and the government's probably going to say well even if four were true it still harmless or that's a great point ron and let's look at what the government says about normal terrell's go to the government three page twenty four this is important point they say first of all documents so rather than what the government's trying to say that you didn't have documents all along with the evidence and with the factual finding of the district court was that he did not find that out until after the stop in the afternoon spanish afy officers requests line fourteen the principal identified as mr deval i stated that he had known torres rodriguez and his brother the true owner of the form five five one presented by jose what kind of  fact here is that there was no arrest and no conviction with respect to that whole incident one while in the case that was the subject of inviting in this prosecution you have evidence of one of the illegal aliens who indicated that upon his entry into the van he said to mr zavala i don't have any papers i don't have any documents of mysteries of all examination of some of the agents defense counsel kept asking whether or not a greyhound bus driver could ask someone for documents and she kept asking whether or not there was a duty to and then we have this evidence that he did coming in as direct evidence and be published to the jury this was a two or three five this is recorded recollection it's not black letter law that a record recollection police report can't be read into the record in fact we have to admit it and motions to admit previously that there and in her opening statement she indicated that this was a business of carrying people from the southwest up to washington state and that was the opening statement of defense counsel nothing and the record suggests that there was any kind of defense put forth or any evidence put forth even a least not rast and that is the ramirez of minutes cases that he says very different from this because an officer who testified beside his personal knowledge that he saw the defendant involved in that close proximity with individuals who were in an elite smuggling ring and when  because in this case we don't have anybody who remembers what happened and the government is wrong when they say that eight o three five can try it oh wait it can't just because a police officer happens not remember what happened suddenly police records don't get read to the jury there's the government's side in no case that supports that i have been able to find one that doesn't exist with the jury instruction the jury instruction is important in this case because the marino further ends of language is what protects com carriers from prosecution if you have a greyhound driver stops dirty smelly spandex get on his bus he might know at that time these guys are probably illegal he might recklessly disregard it but what this court held recently in her  argued will be submitted for decision