think are always important any case now let me understand your lexicon becomes yes or there's a difference between incorrect wro asked me in that band of adjectives which i just used yes misleading to me means that the person who made the statement knew th statement was false and made the statement none the less right is that how you mean it are you saying that kelson here knew that moore had said one thing in his report and examiner said that there were common copier marks on the documents and that would show that they had originated so many of them had originated from valley foods for a large business involved he he didn't say that the marks had been put on at the same time by the same person but he compared the fax numbers that he had seen no evidence with regard to by you he may have seen it with regard to others but and that's been the process was blanco's pricing exactly there's no question that under the small business administration preference situation they advise new bitters which mr beebe was that they will not give him good documents until he is qualified as a preferred small businesses so he said well you know how do i you know gets them directly from us r f p's directly from us and you can ask them for a copy and then if you turn out to be no better it will speed up your qualification so let's go back to what i was asking you get more did state in his report that the marks they use forms conform to the marks valid forms which allows they had no determination as to whether that was negligence or intentional that's the stipulation the state entered in the course of the criminal trial but well that incidentally went on for four or five years because of these kinds of things others they may have been formed specifically to do this business he knew and he admitted in his deposition he knew that by you had been in business for years providing food to others by you provided fresh seafood restaurants and and grocery stores and purchasers in the santa barbara area that's what by you did and had done for a long time it was an up and running business where he refers to all of them as so called businesses have no other business essentially they give you a virtually one hundred percent of their business and then he says but certainly over seventy percent of their income comes from family again asserting their their constructed just to marked with the excerpt numbers it was just so we could both refer to the same things if we wanted to that the interesting thing is and this is the sort of what at least the magistrate judge managed to do i can't tell you judge we did it if new thing they went out the a g went out and they got coulson to set this up for them to do any trust for them because they perceived him to be an expert based on his experience in los angeles he walked into talk to the judge who is what he said to the judge we just know that from agent rodriguez who was there the judge said i don't know anything about this i've never seen anything like this before educate me what we're talking about here educate me about what i need to find in order to issue a search warrant beds i have to be within five percent of what they're getting so they cut their margins very tight which is why you see so many people within five percent of the mate and it's not just happening with valley you'll see large bidders like kellogg in those documents backed up by the evidence he's not pulling the wool over the eyes of the magistrate because he's saying and here's a report from which i get this conclusion which is more report you can read yourself and a classic case so white collar white collar crime cases that arose from what mr kelson believed to be a violation of state bidding laws and that he believed that there was a circumstantial evidence unless they could find specific documents where there was a clear evidence of christ what is the effect of the stipulation that was arrived the tween the state's attorney general and that's true but the issue in that in that sense was not an issue of qualified immunity and there was no findings about the stipulation itself that showed any evidence of examiner david s moore would testify as to his analysis and confirmation that the bidding documents timid to the state of california were in most cases from common source documents which considered pricing information common information about pricing he did say that but what he didn't say was that there was no information about pricing that was being  common source of the documents correct now of the common source of the documents and i think there there is some confusion over what charles and understood from morse conversations and what the stipulation says and i think the stipulation basically says more would say that the documents contain common source information which contains pricing information and more said in this deposition in some in most cases that was true but he doesn't say that in all cases that was true and so there's an inference i think created that at least in some cases there was ultimately i think that the affidavit for the search warrant demonstrates that there was enough circumstantial evidence in this case  to make a determination that probable cause existed and i think frankly i think that even considering some of the false information or the facts that are pointed out by felons i still think that there was sufficient probable cause that's what's left after that's taking that well and i think that what's left after that's taken out is you have you have morris report which says what it says and i don't think that there's actually any inaccuracies in morris report about his evaluation of the evidence there is also communications between moore coulson about pricing information and that was that was in the record that in fact they did talk about pricing information  there is also realistically being pursued by our antitrust division perhaps not the best of the criminal lawyers in the office so the only thing i can say is there anything and i trust criminal case it should be handled by  trust people in the criminal people working in concert to get it right because in this application i think it's clear and we admit that that the application for the search warrant was was very slo situation in this case is that they were at the search for stage looking for and it was going to be based on sort of circumstantial information as to whether or not there was price sharing going on but at th the search warrant they didn't have to find that kind of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to to get a conviction what they had to have was reasonable suspicions that there was some price sharing in that information going on and about pricing information that's part of the case actually does remain for a while and it's not on the other the other points that i would have to point that i w prosecuting attorney for the a g s office if this is your expert you're in trouble he's not going to make it here this man did not come here with a straight information he picked and chose and stated things purely to get to this point and she dismissed the case at that point then she turned around and got a grand jury indictment using the same evidence in front of a grand jury she came back from that and  levy's order you know when he had no doubt these facts were totally wrong counts and knew better but he says what he didn't understand the law this a g s office is still saying he's the best they had they went and got him to do this this was a