clearest on this point where it emphasizes that this is an element of the offense to be prosecutable and then it just ends where there because in that case the government charged three california underlying statutes as the object sexual a fair charge under the federal criminal code but elements of that offense is that the intent was to entice a minor to engage in a particular sexual activity that would have violated a particular criminal law for which you could have been to the defense by this the rd of them that it didn't this is defense his defense had nothing to do with whether he attempted or didn't attempt to entice his defense strange as that might see was that he knew at all times that this was a seven mile radius police and that he was doing it to be expelled from the military so that in consequence therefore the could get rid of his alimony payments to his wife so that if that if has nothing to do with whether this sexual completed crime or the attempted crime made see how your client was prejudice i mean i understand the lines about what he did and didn't believe but there's an awful lot in that tape that wasn't shown to the jury that s like lying about whether the pictures of his sex organs in from the internet were actually it is and then you know how are you prejudiced because were to ask for was not that other get to show the tape but your client did testify without any cross examination then i did say that to the agents when i was arrested right sure but i think this is a quite different situation where the jury completeness isn't it isn't applicable and then you argue to the jury in closing that he's come up with this supposed news story ten months later when he came up with the same story on the tape is that a fair argument for the government given that they got the tape kept out well given your honor that the testimony that the defendant did testify as to the length of the interrogation and the content we believe that it is a fair argument the defendant was able to as the trial right it doesn't you're as if you're closing improperly suggests that you came up with a justice trial testimony and no you're right i believe it doesn't because the defendant did t about what happened during that long interview that that started when it was daylight and ended at night it was clear to the jury that those statements were that what he was testifying to was something that had happened during the interrogation in fact it was clear on the record that all this happened after he was interviewed that it went on what he felt like forever and then he got his this is what he told them then all the self serving hearsay to exclude the self serving hearsay and so our position is that she did not care by making that choice to exclude self serving here so it and the clips were not misleading notably the defendant when entire thing out so he gave the court only two choices it either all comes in or it all stays out and your honor that was not the decision of the court was simply to keep out the hearsay and so we believe that it was an error if the court did find that the excerpts were misleading we believe that this was harmless because the defendant ted testified at length he testified that the interview lasted four hours e r s to seventy nine dollars he said he testified the sun was i i did this because i wanted to get out of the army i was trying to get kicked out but they wouldn't kick me out for physical fitness exam then he he also testified well you know i was doing surveillance on them he even prosecuted for twenty five dollars points it's d n a want to say that it's not assimilated and b if it couldn't have been prosecuted because the object was going to be that the sex act was going to be on base if we rejected both of your arguments do you lose votes to count one crimes act and b he couldn't have been realistically charged or convicted because contrary to the government's arguments the the sex act would only could only have happened as as proposed on base you lose you we would lose we would lose on the two for two to be count but if the court were to if the government were to lose that would be tantamount to adding elements of the offense that would be adding essentially oh you haven't assimilated act offense and you have the government has to prove that as well you have to prove that that the offense could have been charged on guam but also you would have had to prove the elements of what is essentially a generic definition as some of this was not at thirteen case you're on one this is not an assimilated kline's that case here and while we are custom to a ca or section thirteen offenses we're in a unique position where we have military bases in the navy and the air force this is not an assimilated crimes act case this is not a sectional thirteen case in fact the fact that the a c a was raised actually came as a surprise to the government because it was not even invoked in two  you argued that it was a crime that could be assimilated in other words you could have charged in another circumstance for a sex act on basis and that your argument in your brief argument is that this happen but didn't you also argue in your brief that under these simulative crimes act the substantive crime could have been assimilated never heard of anybody doing it so i want to go back to your alternative argument that what he did off base which was some of the enticement would have allowed qualm to charge the substantive offense which required crime requires penetration i mean sexual penetration and if that was only going to take it that could only have realistically here taken place on base i don't see how one could've prosecut object offense be proven by the government be applied to situations in which an individual could actually be prosecuted and then the court says a criminal indictment alleges that tell it could be charged with a criminal offense under california law namely and then a list of california charges that were the object offense and then the whole analysis is about whether their conduct charge here could have proven the object offenses under california law according and asked whether in general the objects actual activity could have been charged in arizona at all it would have placement to engage in sexual activity which requires intrusion without attempting to well damaging evidence that can be admitted against him and i do believe that those videos are highly prejudicial as of that and i think you are we thank both counsel for their help arguments the case just argued will be submitted and the final