sake of clarity i will address the main one first even though it came second in the trial regards to the many sworn statements that's one statement there was no foundation laid for it the person who testified in who the prosecutor got the document into evidence through was not the person who created that document under this under this circuit's case law in the u s versus oriana blanco with that which is on the legal right to be here weren't those facts either stipulated at the time of trial or included in exhibits that were admitted that were not objected to  the government still had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not received permission from the attorney general to reapply to come into the united states now that's just one of the elements  upon basically showing consistencies and unreliability of the evidence against him and arguing to the jury that because of those facts the government not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and as such the admission of the  was that they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt and that that kind of that is where i think the real problem with the kids arose i just want to make a notation you know that these documents were not adopted in missions who who gave the miranda warnings in that case and and i circuit specifically said if the government wanted to put on the evidence that was contained in that document they should have called the person who made the person hard to make sure that there was a fair trial in this case i think if we look at the transcript there are several points where both parties had an opportunity to argue whether the evidence did and then admitted the district judge gave sensible and thoughtful rationale for the decisions he made in terms of redacting or those types of forms which are also known as i to authorize those are routine unambiguous facts to establish that the person has been deported if he's been deported that's highly circumstantial evidence that he's also an alien and that he had no permission to be in the u s there was some discussion case but it doesn't seem that that was an element that that was being contested and certainly that was no evidence to contradict the government's evidence on that point going back to the september sworn statement i could just again just make clear the examiner was blown up and it was shown to the jury but apart from that the agent who is the arresting agent testifies from his own personal knowledge as to the questions that he asked and the answers that he received from the defendant after the defendant had them and eyes and that's all of pages twenty four three twenty nine of are paper files they have two prongs on a very frequently there's different files the argument centers around the fact that it would be easy to lose a document out of the out of these farms also  routinely we are not allowed to talk about that that problem with the substation but that goes to it as well werther word there are documents that somehow are not  were there then where it is held they were relevant and and excluded but the point of the of the whole thing is that it's very possible that documents fall out of these and that's an argument that's ma