the morning honors may please the court clear unequivocal and convincing clear unequivocal and convincing is the standard that the government must meet in is there any relevance to the fact that i understand that that on the guilty plea that the standard or the burden of proof is different or the standard of proof is different is there any relevance that what the guilty plea does is plea to something that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt we don't believe so judge according to the cases that have analyzed that it's just the fact that it's a the court takes the plea that substantively different than in situations where there's an actual trial and the person is found beyond a reasonable doubt so so far i haven't seen any cases that draw the distinction that you just make and rather it's just that the standards are so different clear commits clear unequivocal and convincing is the civil equivalent and we talked about this with judge wives billowed during the argument of the motion that it's the equivalent of beyond a reasonable doubt and so it's it's the highest standard in the civil law and that therefore the government should not be allowed to use the guilty plea which was just as you say the factual basis for it as a basis you know i'd like well but the the standard you're citing for a factual basis is only applies to the factual basis the conviction involves both the factual basis and the defendant's admission that i did it the client so that's more than just the factual basis standing alone which is what has to be enough to show the crime was likely committed you know i have that plus the guy admitting that he was guilty but the judge me why doesn't that take you up to the equivalent of trial guilty verdict because the station is that the court made no independent determination beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed i understand what you're saying your honor he had admitted to doing it but this whole idea of it was knowing or that he knew what he was admitting when it comes to the plea itself we believe it doesn't match and it shouldn't be applied so you think we should we should feel that everybody's in prison for a guilty plea is you know in there based on some sort of preponderance type standard no where is all the people have been convicted after trials have really gone to the reasonable doubt level but we're talking about the national ation here i understand what you're saying in that you're drawing well that's the implication of your position isn't we believe that when you talk about the naturalization that it has to be a separate analysis within the de naturalization hearing itself you can't just you can't just is there is no analysis of his knowledge it was just the admission and the and the entering into the plea that the stoppel shouldn't apply because the judge was analyzing at that lower standard they weren't because the judge said well collateral estoppel you plead guilty so therefore none of your factual distinctions matter none of your allegations matter we don't have to have a hearing we don't have to conduct their own independent analysis it's just the simple fact that  plea therefore renders you lose your citizenship and we believe that that does not rise to the level of clear convincing and to get back to to judge collatz and point tell generally speaking you can tell me if i'm wrong about this i can't think of instances in which convictions by guilty plea are treated differently for legal purposes then convictions by a jury now getting to his point you know yes that some of the underlying lydy of the plea is treated differently when we look at the factual basis by a preponderance like standard but doesn't your argument sort of violate that fundamental role that a conviction by plea is this is essentially the same as a conviction by a jury i think i think no i don't think so judge i understand the point you're making but i think that here the fact that the government has to prove it by clearing fermenting evidence and because that makes him that renders him entitle to a national hearing understand what you're saying i understand you're saying  that that the fact that he pled guilty therefore sort of sealed it at that level but i believe that the court still owes it and the law what is there that the government has to prove that that standard that's what i'm saying judge that's what i'm trying i'm asking you what is it that the government must prove at that standard they have to prove that he that he's clearly not entitle to have become a citizen that he is that that and if what is what was one of the ways of doing that would that be proving that he committed a particular crime i think we need to look at this particular crime and and in light of the crime that it was so it's not like the earlier cases that you had this morning where the person was saying well i was downloading child porn but i didn't know it or i had committed a murder and i didn't know i was a felon this is a very complex tax lawyer there was iraqi sanctions and the tax laws to which he ultimately pleaded guilty and it's our position that when he went to his naturalization interview he didn't know that he was committing any crime his plea was many years later and most importantly there was a letter from ofac that put him on notice but the agency that he worked for on notice that he was that they were in violation of the sanctions that letter came eight months after he naturalized and so it's our position that if that letter had come before he naturalized well then of course it's obvious that he was he knew that he was committing a crime but here he didn't know that he was committing a crime and we think that's a very important distinction and and it also goes to his state of mind at the time that he naturalized so we built but the the problem i see and i'm just thinking out loud here is that the difficulty of this case  is the charges to which he played there were numerous others that were dismissed but the ones to which he pled the operative time of the conduct that he was accused of having done was within the t frame that could have that could bring into question the answers that he put to the naturalization questions so when he admits doing those that conduct within that time frame that creates the problem that i see you or your client is facing is that when he says i did that he is placing himself back in that time frame  in saying that he did it but i also understand your position which is at the time he answered those questions he wasn't even aware or at least his now his position he wasn't aware that he was doing anything illegal but he's now in the in he's he's he's against himself he has confessed to doing something which at an earlier time he didn't at that point he says now didn't believe he was doing anything illegal but he's now subsequently said i was there's no doubt your honor that he admitted when he pleaded guilty to that you're absolutely right in your and there's no doubt that it happened during the statutory period but he there's also this is a question of fact as far as his subjective intent his state at the time and that's why we need to have a hearing that's why it should have been decided on a judgment on the pleadings judge why should have had a hearing and should allowed mr ahmed to testify in front of coming and for the judge as well as how could how could wouldn't that kind of have an effect of almost the a b s case of of arguing the invalidity of his conviction no because we're talking about is whether he was entitle to naturalize and his state of mind at the time that he naturalized i'm not trying to undo any convictions i'm just trying to get the court to acknowledge that the point the defendant mr mohammad was entitled to a hearing and that he was that according to the case law it should have been decided on the man on the pleadings it should have been something where a full hearing is held in the judge mr mr hollis could have cross examined mr ahmed on his prior guilty plea and use that to  weaken our position but at the end of the day the law says that he's entitled to a hearing it's a d naturalization so if he gets a hearing world the effect of that hearing to be essentially to challenge the validity of the conviction i believe it will be based on a confession i will be i believe it will be to challenge whether or not he loses his citizenship he he will have he will be in a position where he will have admitted having committed the crimes that issue but at the same time he will be able to put on extenuating circumstances all the other issues that we raise in our brief that sort of goes to mitigation or his ability to naturalize in of itself well he'll say i plead guilty i've played pleaded guilty but actually there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt or clear and convincing evidence even  guilt that's our position but here's here's the real question i have every question i have for you that's a little different the way been talking about which is the underlying factual basis and this gets at judicial stoppel rather than collateral estoppel and i wonder whether the district court got it right for the wrong reason and maybe it was maybe the district i was misled by the government i have no idea but in the factual basis for the plea he admitted to knowingly and willfully conspiring in federating and agreeing to to get on the rd ground the district court looked at knowingly misrepresenting ourselves on the on the app that is good enough by itself sustain that particular day naturalization holding so the should we let him out of that admission and if so why because normally if you admit something in court you can't i didn't meet it later and some other case i understand the judge but i think it has to be taken in the totality and i think there has to be a hearing and mr hollis took mr him at the deposition and mr med testify that he didn't know anything about i mean he did he you're right he pled guilty and you're right it says any said that it says in language that it's knowingly you're right judge there's no doubt but we believe that the law says he's still entitle to a hearing that that it shouldn't it shouldn't cause a stop and it should he should be allowed in the civil proceeding that's brought eight years after to raise his defense we might be up here again we might lose after a motion for summary judgment we might lose after a full hearing but we believe the mr met is entitle to that so i can admit something and then come back in a later case with some of the problems that the chief judge identified and say yeah actually that's wrong i that's just not true what i admitted to as part of my plea agreement just isn't true i want to prove that it's not true by clear and convincing evidence we're not arguing that he didn't do that during the period we're not trying to undo that we're trying to establish is that at the time that he naturally as he didn't know that that was a crime that's the distinction that i'd like to draw even though he admitted in the plea agreement that he did he knowingly and willfully did it yes and was convicted s that would be a variation of allowing mr ahmed to challenge its criminal conviction without challenging the far as collateral estoppel goes this c so the government's not using he's not trying to challenge that issue the government is using the fact of his plea as a basis for revoking his naturalization in this matter that he's precluded from here i'm happy to explore further questions on the issue of collateral stop with your owners have them some important issues that i think her husband makes that need to be addressed oh let me ask you this did you may be by the argument you were making or is it just off the table do you think you're well yes the government the government did make that argument by challenging and at the outset it's important for the codes of the court to note that mr hama didn't argue before the district court what would be considered extenuating circumstance he argued instead what he positive factors that is not going to be sufficient to demonstrate extenuating circumstances that would mitigate the callee ate his guilt for the crimes that he pled to and we know that because there are several cases that specifically lay out the requirement that a river a retrospective on on a on a on a naturalization on a naturalized citizens cheve minutes is not going to be sufficient to show extenuating circumstances a showing of all of the good things that a person has done not going to be sufficient to demonstrate the sinewy sort of order to do that we need to have approved of all transfers of funds to al today that was a contact he had in jordan knowing that the money would be transferred from jordan to iraq so he acknowledged in the plea agreement the acts that he misrepresented on in the form nine hundred and ninety and that he failed to acknowledge were crimes in completing his naturalization application extenuating circumstances don't exist  best some positive factors exist and that's with regard to now three of the government's complaint seeking naturalization revocation or mr ahmed of fact with regard to count two of the complaint and the government seeking naturalisation revocation for mr hamad having committed a crime involving moral turpitude ahmed raises the issue of whether he knew in completing the forms that he was committing a crime it's important to note at the outset regardless of what mr hamad has played and he  pleases you knowingly and willfully commit these crimes it's important to note that the form nine hundred and ninety has a set of instructions with it and that set of instructions lets the the signatory on that for doing at the time sending money in prohibition to federal law or at least to the rules at that time if it was questionable if it was well maybe it is maybe it's  not and he's going to head in doing his charitable work and and getting things back and he fills out the nine hundred and ninety not really knowing that what he's doing is in direct contravention to federal law why is that such a heinous act to afterwards when he finds out would it was he had an obligation what if he had wrote it instead you know when i fill that out i was incorrect because now i've discovered that what i was doing was was improper and i shouldn't have been there wouldn't that have subjected it would that have subjected him  to the naturalization as well that would be a different case because that we wouldn't be considering his plea agreement to having done to having completed those forms and provided false information knowingly and willfully at that time or that would be different  a criminal if it is one who pleads guilty to a crime like knowledge is knowingly and willfully committing the crime in a plea agreement they can later argue that they didn't know at the time of the crimes that they were committing crime where you have to go on the cheap case that you are violating code some you just have to know you did the illegal act or that you know that what you're doing yes your honor this is this case fall under the former and well i'm just questioning that as a logical matter if you if you create plead guilty do certain knowledge crimes that have knowledge as a mens rea or the knowledge doesn't require proof that you knew the law government just has to prove in a lot of criminal cases that you knew that you took the action but there are certain criminal statutes where you do have to prove more knowledge like the tax code and i'm trying to you don't seem to appreciate the distinction you're arguing that if you had knowledge is an element of the crime then it's automatically shows you knew what you were doing was illegal well the government's wrong and sorry you go ahead the government started it mr hama doesn't contest whether he had real quickly your honors this is a civil procedure case ultimately it has a lot of interesting issues like the naturalization and it certainly has a severe impact for my client at the end of the day it's a it's a civil procedure and the question i think the court has to ask itself is we want to step in and rule that it doesn't matter what the standards are in the underlying civil criminal case and the civil case does a court want to make that jump  that no court has has made before that says that the distinction between a guilty plea standard and the standard for revoking someone's citizenship that doesn't matter so we would encourage the court to not do that you have a  of judge collatz ins question which is how do you understand the language in the plea agreement was that knowledge that he had knowledge that he had committed the act or knowledge that he had committed a crime at that point i knew i committed a crime i did something legal judge or i wouldn't feel comfortable answering either way jette i don't want to mislead you i wouldn't be able to answer that i'm sorry ok and off my question was about the language of the plea agreement it was about the elements of the crime that he pleaded guilty to were knowledge is an element of this crime right yes you are so you can answer can't you what the knowledge requirement was to violate that statute i believe that it was that he knew that he was violating the law yes ok well then if he pleaded guilty to it then e he had to admit that he knew he was violating the law at the time he was doing the criminal conduct which predated the naturalisation i believe that's correct judge but i would just draw the distinction that i've tried to make that at the the even though he admitted later that what he did he knew he was doing that when he went into the naturalization examination and when he got sworn in to be a u s citizen that he didn't know at that time that those were crimes i understand i understand your point and i don't mean to bicker with you ok i'm just trying to draw that  refrain from making that leap that i mentioned at the start of my rebuttal and we believe that the judgment on the pleadings was an error and should be reversed that we go back down have a hearing as to whether or not mr ahmed keeps his citizenship or not and that i thank you for your time