thirty forty years you don't know how many i didn't count on what is your very best issue that we should focus on looking to your clients who should i think the number one issue is that the you that the statutory violation by the government and in every guarding the pyrrhus as if like the statutory and interpretation creates a perception that when the statute designates certain persons think persons things or manners of operation all emissions should be understood as exclusions w honor and rule sixteen that the federal rules of criminal procedure do not trump the constitutional process as outlined by congress in the constitution if you've got a constitutional argument you're making you don't have to follow the rule in order to present it according to the district court's time line when motion should be presented that way is that all and no i i believe that the court is inclined to answer your question that's exactly what i'm saying but i believe that the court is implying that that that was done deliberately it's my understanding the rules of law in our society that a constitutional argument can be brought any time prior to trial to trial that it's reasonable plus your honor the my client shows tremendous prejudice you saying that if a defendant doesn't object to a question because even if the question calls for hearsay of  crawford type that he can raise that issue at any time because it's a constitutional question will i believe that there are some constitutional it yes your honor i am saying that there are some constitutional  issue no matter what it is does not have to be timely objected to or time we preserve that's what how you read the constitution or read the constitution it has to be done prior to trial your honor a reasonable time for to tr in that that the court rules do not trump the rules of congress and there are rules that would indicate that and that and the court made discretionary rulings that were prejudicial michel prejudicial to my clients they let their inconsistent rulings with the other defendants that were there about the other defendants were bent on attacking those they really itself not on the basis of in other words the fact that you're claiming a constitutional violation here doesn't really get past the point of you're now saying well the rule was applied to us unfairly because it was applied with differently than the other defendants that hasn't been anything to do with whether there's a constitutional claim or these other rules the fact is we have a statute here your honor your honor i'm glad that you're asking these questions and i enjoy the challenges why have why have anything any rule outlined by congress i mean why don't we just do what they did at ru ridge and at waco and don't serve any warrants and just go down there start shooting of the people that we have eight government on balance on that has to be a balanced government and that balance a government says that you have to you have to obey the laws and that includes the united states government that needs to obey the laws also any time the united states government steps out of steps over the line and they refused to obey the rules that are set up back by congress that makes them no better than the con then the criminals that they're trying to prosecute and my client didn't get a fair trial and that's what we're here to say today i'm happy to answer any more questions that you have on that particular issue your honor and i'd like to go on if fourteen army agents came to at his car when he was pulling out of his garage early in the morning with a black masks and black paraphernalia and they pounded in the car and they took these assault type weapons and pointed to my client's hands took them out of their car forced them back into their house against their will handcuff them kept them incognito one isolated in handcuffs in separate rooms and in tierra gated them for three hours three hours they were under arres next month this is me today april third in the year two thousand and six my client has been incarcerated imprisoned for five solid years they didn't file this indictment against them til after about a levin and a half months after they initially arrested him there can be no question that my client was not free to leave that he was arrested and that that there is some prejudging prejudice this was brought up in front of the magistr that the government put on a witness the government over here put on a witness a lawyer from costa rica and that lawyer got up and he testified during the government's case in chief that that one of the key witness this really government the key witness for the government was arrested in panama for news narcotics trafficking and the government did not object to that question they didn't go into it they didn't ask any questions about it about five days later in the trial they had the judge give the trial court give an instruction to the jury unequivocally said the court said there is no evidence to suggest that mrs phillips has ever smuggle drugs or committed any drug related offens of course testimony flies in the in the in the face of the government's own witnesses testimony they could and i was not allowed to go into that there's a confrontation clause violation there i believe  knowledge of this that was not gone into by the by the government and it wasn't allowed to go in go into vimy the government the government and the court testified involved without giving a cautionary instruction a to the as to the credibility of the witnesses is the province of the jury they took that away from the problems of the jury and i was not allowed to ask any type of questions regarding at all as a matter of fact i was told i would be held in contempt  would how would the trial judge know whether mrs phillips this particular witness had been arrested for narcotics trafficking or not less the judge has some x party contact with somebody and i'm not saying that she did how can the appreciate your honor thank you very much if you have any more questions i'd sure answer them before i go please court my name is carl blackstone and with andrew freeman we are part of the united states in this appeal we also represent the government of trial your honour's the defendant here got an extremely fair trial judge rothstein did everything to ensure he got a fair trial his trial lasted thirty two days there were hundreds of exhibits introduced the governor called over seventy five witnesses the defendant testified over the course of five days and after a brief liberation the jury convicted him of all counts let me address briefly th judges do set a pretrial motion cutoff of january fourteenth two thousand and two at almost nine months after entitles file on that date the defendant client thirty three pretrial motions if not oh didn't have time to cook up every clever idea should do that and absent good cause the senate cannot file a motion after the pretrial motion cut off we pointed out that all the evidence that the defendant relied on with available to him early on in this case he had copies of all the search warrant he could have went and got the original warrant and we pointed out that because a sealed in box that is not photocopy we got affidavits from the clerk of the court in arizona and here in the western district they know the warrant actually do bear the seal of that if your court ju exception you can't say that an f b i agent should have known there should be a magistrate seal on these wants of the agents were acting in good faith when they executed so we submit the court doesn't need to reach the issue you can rule on the timeliness grounds what the very least you can when he was told he could leave or each day he chose to stay and watch the first go on there was no arrest warrant for the defendant there was no complaint there was no indictment there was no information he was not charged with anything the charges were not filed until about eleven months later in march of two government typically would do a search gather the evidence take several months maybe years before they bring charges but there's never been any court in this land that's held that speedy trial act begins to run at the time a search is done and that is briefly detained there's a case on the side of the court the calander case that was a case in which the military police arrest actually arrested somebody for making a bomb threat they didn't file formal charges they waited forty four days before they filed formal charges and this court held that's fine no it was never explicitly said in the record but the defendant never brought any evidence to say yes that's right she was arrested for narco trafficking and money laundering and he had many opportunities to do that what was going on here judge ross he got very frustrated because throughout the course of this trial the defense counsel with narco trafficking or money laundering i'm also going to tell him she's never been charged with a dozen and she gave that is structured and her fact she was absolutely truthful there was nothing wrong about what she said she was trying to set the record straight and make sure that not a false impression created  this jury the bottom line your honour's even if there was some area here at the very most it's harmless here as i pointed out his trial went on for many many days many many witnesses testified the defendant the stand for five days get every eighteen u s c section thirty thirty one piece that any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from  said individual was arrested first element or served with a summons in connection with such charges while there is no doubt in anybody's mind that he was arrested they just didn't come in and put him in handcuffs and go through the house they kept him in handcuffs for three hours they kept him in and they kept him isolated and they kept going to have him what their questionings and i kept telling me how much trouble they were english this s t c proceedings where they came in and they asked and they did what they did to my client was nothing but a pretext for them to gain information illegally shalit they could use it against my client to court along you have any do you have any kids or your best case that if you have any precedent saying this is an arrest for speedy trial purposes here their arrest comes is once the client free to leave or not when they when they put the handcuffs on him and they put armed guards over them you're if you were handcuffed in a in a room and you were isolated you got an armed guard over you and you're not you're not free to leave you are under the control of the always the case in a detention during a search so what you're saying is every search three hours like our records after the search was completed he was released is that correct yes three three hours they could have they could have put him back outside they took him into his house against his own will they could have released them and said he you're free to go we're going to search this or you can stay they didn't do that they didn't do that i think that michigan in the summer this is the supreme court case that some time ago so that there could be at the tension  reasonable detention for ten or fifteen minutes the same type of a of a of a like a terry stop when it goes into three hours and you're under constant pressure by that that manifests itself into a full custody of custody all rest that's just not a detention a detention is something that somebody does well they check things out to make sure it was safe they walked in there they made sure this up the house received they knew that within the first twenty minutes and they kept my clients are for three hours i what i'd like to address the discovery of issues the discovery issues your your arses there was more than four hundred thousand documents here and there and and and the discovery was a very difficult situation the judge at the trial court judge did act differentially towards other clients and give them more time to respond up to a month before trial i brought my my motions for my client within two months of standard of conduct in that they if anybody should know the law or they should know the law and when they didn't have that magistrate ceylon there that's not my client's fault if the and the and the fact that they see that the  that goes into the province of this of a separation of powers issue and they just can't do that to them the the magistrate that the magistrate is a legislatively created court not a judicially created quarter or a constitutionally created court and there are a lot of differences when that magistrate failed to put his stamp on there and there is a magistrate stamp as evidence by my belief he abandoned his office and anything that he did when he think of the fall of the last mandated by congress i believe this is a violation of his office and i'm sure abandonment and those warrants should be