honor good morning thank you good morning my name is david kessler and i'm going at the united states attorney in the eastern district of new york i'm joined by my colleague kevin travel we represent the government in the appeal if the panel is amenable i'd like memo the district court looked at page eighteen at the district court transcript a series of chapters like the history and characteristics of the defendant their employment the fact that they have family responsibilities that individual sort of special responsibility for caring for particular people in their family that it certainly seems like more of a moral suasion than than the sureties on the bond and that did nothing to stop and did nothing to and that's really the basis that we are seeking day as well you know the danger now as long as the defendant are in the community so that that's the basis of the application and let me just briefly i think both defendants but certainly one of the defendant focused on the idea that the danger is somehow and it's not speculative this is about risk assessment about the assessment of condition that physically prevents them from leaving the house or is it simply the circumstance that the electronic monitoring would at some point alert someone if they choose to leave the house that is correct there is no physical restriction on the defendant's movement whatsoever there is only the hope that if they chose to be the house to do something that would be detected and acted upon before something something happened and i think that is sort of the core of the issue here when you look at the conduct and the calculated nature of what happened and the extraordinary risk meat action posed particularly the incitement of others and the attempt or others that i yanis the government in this quarter today for some extraordinary police it is asking for a stay of an order an order that has already been executed and order not from one offense exactly what they should have some sort of every factor under the bill the format applied the standard and the standard is reasonably assured return to court and reasonably  twenty seven right and i asked the whole quality i told judge called i believe that the bail package completely addresses any concerns at all and i have fairly deep budget this presumption  court then goes on to say he appreciates everyone's advocacy and clearly right before that on on the same page i address at the bottom of page fourteen and on the front page fifteen this morning and i agree it is a close question but i also believe that one night of behavior is not a basis to reject someone's ability to make rational decisions and that ho can i just hit the pause button on that for nd because i am looking at the pages you address going to and i'm just if you could directly great have to go line number because i'm not seeing it where anyone addresses include particular the court address of the presumption w of violence is such that the client will go out and do exactly this event so she takes the government at its word she take that they're concerned do with me and she asked me the question what is it that would a score the court that's balancing the presumption she's after she didn't want to show he she didn't say anything about for example and you're if you're suggesting that because the government had raised the presumption one ought to presume that the court was aware of it and that's what she was talking about well i'm not asking you to presume because right before that on page sixteen line one to say i talk about both with the flight and any danger to the community not did the judge in your view address in the session of dangerousness my question did the judge address the existence of the presumption which makes this case different from other cases in which the presumption does not apply so could you just address that specific question or is it that because it was adequately raised by the government your view is that one ought to assume that the court was aware of it well i have to say that the court was fully aware of  because judge brody in corporate what happened before magistrate judge gold and it could look at page eighteen right at state eighteen again she's focused on the dangerousness she's what she's doing is what a di she had no intent to harm anyone this was an empty police vehicle badly vandalized one and a half block from the police station there were only two other people around both of them were taking photographs it was no crowd fact it's not the record because i'm assuming then we'd have to talk to the government see if they'd like to proper any additional facts on their part rank i'm not offended by that i think they will confirm that there were two congress around and i think they will confirm that the only person  swept up in the moment that is to people with no history of violence no criminal history at all there's no real planning here what it requires to do this is stopping at a convenience store there's no membership in any thank you your honor let me be briefed on the idea that the defendants were swept up at the moment that's simply not what the record shows the record shows they had to gather material they had to construct fire bombs or they had to find a target they had to use them and then encourage at least one other person so they were not swept up in the moment whatever else goes back show i also just want to briefly touch on the things judging are being a question about the presumption you know the presumption is a factor here not the only thing we're relying on but i do think it is worth noting that in fact judge already did not explicitly discuss the presumption  the statute requires her to do the bigger point here is the risk of being arrested which is supported by the facts you know not just the presumption  can you just respond to counsel's comment that there were only two other people around her that fact contained in the district court record anywhere your honor i don't believe the number of people around with contained in the district court record applies and that the legal framework wherein the defendant has to rebut the presumption and then the presumption becomes a factor rather than the determinant all of that was briefed in the detention memorand filed by the government which were before the district