and like to give the court of the brief factual resuscitation i know you've read the brief but i want to go over a couple of things with the court's permission first of all the issue of contract my client was a businessman a contractor working for a contractor in spokane washington when he was contacted by harry avery and at that time perry adrian was not working for the f up to that point and up until july twenty third of that year my client has never had a gun ever for zest a gun to know anything about guns to know where to get guns these requests from perry adrian continued and at one point in their relationship in early july my client mr matola indicated to me that h him a gun the testimony is that my client told perry adrian this so that perry adrian would get off his back at that point or within a week of that point very adrian then went to the f b i and said i know of a man who has a felony record who said you could get me a gun now a little bit of history  had been in the witness protection program and had had contacts with several law enforcement agencies in the past so he knew the routine is there any evidence then your client who i  than accidental well that's always been the question whether it was an accident or not there's no evidence in the record that i'm aware of that anybody said harry adrian  contact this guy no evidence of that ah i if i had to guess i would say it was accidental the record reflects that my client needed an appraiser call this company her apparently h the person on the other end of the line talking with a brooklyn accent and so they contacted each other about six months after that and that's how the relationship started now once the f unquote in another city back east then came the day of the sale of the gun my client indicates that he knew twenty mos cite in my brief i think it's similar it's a woman who is contacting a man and the court that case i believe held in the defendant's favor regarding entrapment the question is whether or not there was any predisposition predisposition means prior to the government getting involved in this case the government didn't get involved until after perry avery got involved so the question is whether there was any predisposition prior to july eighth or ninth when perry adrian went to the f b i the only evidence of predisposition is the fact that my client told perrier green yes i'll get shit done so actually saying now get off my back  i agree with that so we have two issues in this case one of them is is the evidence issue of whether the prosecutor talked to the defendant with questions that were  irregular at best about whether he had put on his game face and whether he had used some foul language or had not used foul language up to that point during the trial then of course the second issue is the failure of the government's approval trap so with regard to the improper questions i think the defendant was denied a fair trial because the questions that were asked in there in my brief are essentially irrelevant and i can't understand why the trial court judge would have said not sustain my objection to them when you have a defendant on the stand and he's being cross examined by the government i don't know how that furthers the search for truth to ask the witness whether he's put on his game face i frankly don't even know what that means i perceive it has something to do with sports diverse but i'm not all right the explanation of the government in their brief with regard to this line of questioning was that it was to test the defendant's capacity to remember events and his sincerity truthfulness and motives well it had nothing to do with sincerity truthfulness or motives granted my client had testified in new jersey for the government but i don't know how the two are connected so i submit to the courts of that was there my client didn't have a fair trial with regard to the element of the entrapment issue of the fourth paragraph in the instruction says that the jury must find that the defendant was not entrapped now the jury did convict my client but it's admit that based upon the evidence that you have before you in the record it's clear that my client had no intention of possessing or selling the firearm on july twenty third that this constant questioning regarding the firearm was brought up at first by the independent actions of perry adrian and then after a short time by the inducements of the government acting in concert with ferrie avery and the government tries to portray this  in their brief as in fact on page ten of their brief they say that the two started discussing the issue of entrapment was not true the truth is that perry adrian started discussing and questioning the defendant as to whether you could get a firearm and that's where it began the government jumped in and so i submit to the court that my client was entrapped and asked the court for a finding of not guilty and at the very least a new trial based on the evidentiary issues thinking again cross examination was the government's intensity try to prove in at least test mr metol as credibility is to mean or understand his sincerity and his motives and truthfulness  had testified on direct examination about the fact that he had spent fifty four days in trial back in new jersey in connection with an organized crime trial and that he had had experience testifying in court and had worked with the f b i in connection with that testimony that's all true but what did the profanity questions and to do with its credibility your honor there was there was only one question about the profanity and i think it stood it stark contrast respectfully about the way mr  a testified on the stand during the course of the trial and his department and his demeanor during the course of the transactions with that theory adrian those transactions were recorded a jury got to hear that's right they heard mike when people go to temple or church or a court room sometimes they dress a little nicer right that's correct your honor and if they clean up their lane leave a little nicer man that doesn't make them a liar or have anything to do with their credibility  believe mr metol answered the questions that is it to his benefit i the question first was asked whether he had had experience testifying in court and he said yes he had the second truth he also stated that he had i had an opportunity to go through the f b i reports in this case and he said his testimony was fully accurate completely you do you mean i mean he's trying to put on the someone's best demeanor for contradicted directly contradicted much of that testimony according to his his view of the facts and so he used his view of the facts i think needed to be tested tested in context with the with the other testimony not according to mr moss mr moss testified in the government's case in chief that mr matola had approached him on three separate occasions asking not only for a gun but a clean your own and he also told mr moss that he was a gun collector he had so the timing and that the statements mr march testify that it was some time three different occasions between june or during june and july of two thousand and four before or after  respectfully is a question about why mr much told wanted to get involved in in this activity and according to the  place of residence where the gun was obtained and he was doing this because in this tape recording he said i'm going to do this for you first mr adrian because then we're married for life meaning then he would have something on mr adrian to hold the risk here quickly given the fact that they're going to be entering into this other criminal venture to expose a criminal venture to engage in bookmaking operations  so it would be the government's it was the government's position that mr mr matola was was invented wasn't induced and certainly had a predisposition