i wonder is the united states against rick rosen at all you also can come forward many attacks or machinery or he or reason to believe and for example if i turn a light switch i don't have actual knowledge i'm not going to set up a bomb as opposed to turning on lights but i certainly have reason to believe that i will turn on lights when i do that and everything in almost everything we do in our lives that way there are very few things we have actual knowledge of almost nothing of actual meaning some philosophical actual it seems and that's what the penalty where my client got fifteen years on the basis of something far less than actual knowledge something that the hypothetical reasonable man might suppose circumstances the court has held that that's sufficient in fact the only court court held clearly that to be constitutionally effective the sufficient actual knowledge for bad faith is required there is no court that has held anything less than that and even in the public welfare around the states less than actual knowledge have again stuff or him actually i beg to differ with the court the evidence about verity if the jury had heard it would have helped the jury understand that our clients the operation with our clients a sliver of his general activity and that was critical information for the jurors to have they could not adequately assess who are these people what is the context within which we are learning information about them how do we weigh their evidence if they did not know about the full range of verities activities the judge burrell has already concluded that the government was both negligent and untimely in failing to produce this evidence and as this court is where our contention is that those failures in the trial courts failure adequately to do its job in various ways impeded cross examination but also and more importantly deprive these defendants of critical corroboration of their only defense which was that verity had lied to them had duped them and they went along with him but that they themselves did not have that criminal mind that is required for conviction varity if the very evidence had been before the jury the jury would have learned that his money laundering activities extended to cuba mexico syria jordan costa rica germany belgium romania and the czech republic they would have learned that his trafficking activities in the united states involved activities in california arizona nevada texas louisiana new jersey and new york and in addition involved activities in mexico they would have learned that he was powerful enough to have contacts inside the d n a they would have learned that he made millions of dollars not related to this conspiracy but related to these other activities and that he was sending weapons to syria and they would have had a chance to  they were not particularly really sophisticated and they weren't particularly intelligent so it's the government's position that mr rosen in this dream i'm sure were directing mr verity what to do and that they were these these defendants were partners at least the ones who were partners with mr verity that contention simply could not have passed the straight face test with this jury if the jury had had all of the information they should make drugs but this is really this is really lawful activity we didn't learn about verities perjury in this proceeding cynically asserting to the jury that he doesn't really know anything about methamphetamine he doesn't know what it is whereas indeed briefing with federal agents he was telling them gee you know i know that this is how you make it in this is what you do with it and actually it's private no you're with it and character versus stewart the court held the disclosure up obligation exists after all not to police the good faith the prosecutor's between sure the accuracy and fairness of trials by requiring the adversarial testing of all available evidence bearing on guilt or innocence and so the prosecution is in a position to get all there would be evidence that our clients knew about the extensive nature of these operations and that was part of the point but i think the question is if you show how large an operations guy has questions would not have been obvious to anyone dealing with this person that you know i mean i'm just saying that's that's the question of materiality that we have to look at well i'm i guess i'm missing that what the factual under that would be because there would have to be some knowledge there would have to be information to these wasn't doing the same kind of using our duties in other locations in other words verity was just the hub and then he had various satellite individuals who were our questions of taking you over your time thank you very much counsel for your effective arguments to holly i've lost track of how much time you and they generously gave me two minutes ok put you on the clock and the only reason that i'm here i was a trial lawyer in the case and i was the one who was screaming every time  with some of my co counsel every time that we learned that there was more information on david verde that we didn't have when it happened when there was a hole there when there are rea material that went back into chambers and never came out again i knew there was something there we you know that i've been a trial lawyer for thirty years and i can tell you that we would have made mincemeat out of verde had i had that material this is not a case where verde is going to look more sophisticated for his sophistication is that he do to people and we found that out on appeal that was the first time i got to see one hundred sixty pages and had i had that material we could have shown the the jury that david verde was not only a con man and a good one but that some of the people that he conned he told exactly the same information to as he told the i am and held me mansoor that he was sending cough medicine overseas that was part of it but if you look at that beginning on page ninety of the brief you'll see all of those items that were redacted  one point he says that his operation was over one hundred million dollars and i can tell you that had we known all of this information i could have cross examined verde and a whole different way and we knew it at the time i was screaming for  the judge didn't have any idea what we would have used it just like i listened to your honor's questions and you don't know how we could have used that material but i can tell you that has a trial lawyer in that case and we worked very very hard on it we could have used that terrio in such a way that would have shown that david verde was in fact a sophisticated con man and that he was probably a terrorist and that he was using iman and held me mansoor who are very  unsophisticated business men using them in a way that was can comment right with our the fans and we may have won the case we don't know nobody can tell what the jury would have done with it but the fact is we should have had it we didn't have it and in my opinion the we very well could have won the case that we had that information i don't know he was crucial to the defense of all those people a not get a fair trial because they had all that information from a little over your time thing off thank you for your argument you hear from the government at this time from disclosing all of this information before the trials for i'm sorry the first part one question what prevented the government from disclosing all of the information about virgie in advance of trial well giving it to them in a more timely fashion was typical problems with the government not getting the documents as quickly as we should have gotten them and i take responsibility for that here as i did in the lower court and i apologize for it but they all they had what information they got in a timely enough manner that they were entitled and had the opportunity to cross examine verdes to their heart's content and in fact the how many pages of documents were submitted trial was conducted three days a week tuesday wednesday and thursday so everybody had from friday through monday to spend substantial amount of time reviewing materials they were were i just want you to if you know was there any cross examination averred ferdie about him fooling other suppliers of precursors lying to them duping them that sort of thing i did not review the record the answer is i don't know the answer is you don't know i don't know were they able to cross examine him for example on the fact that he had a source with now that's three doctored information that we have concealed form subsequent subsequent investigation has revealed that not to be true but i mean i don't i don't have that in the record because there's no mechanism for me to put that subsequent information in the record so it seems to me that in this case where you have the you know this is not your standard cram a lot in tempt requirements statute this is pretty close to a negligent standard or should have known and you have these competing theories as i read the record the government's theory is these people that dealt with dirty have the know what this stuff was being used for the amounts the method dealing with lots of people and it may have been part of this method of operation to fool suppliers that this was ok that there was nothing wrong with it were they able to cross examine him about that well something in stewart was on the books when you tried this case wasn't yes here's what i think it was judge trott who wrote it so that this kind of witness is by definition cut from untrustworthy claw and must be managed  carefully watched by the government and the courts to prevent them from falsely accusing the innocent from manufacturing evidence against those under suspicion of crime and from lying under oath in the courtroom because the government decides whether and when to use such witnesses you know what if anything to give them for their service the government stands uniquely positioned to guard against perfidy accordingly we expect prosecutors and investigators to take all reasonable measures to safeguard the system against treachery the responsibility includes the duty as required by giggling go to turn over to the defense and discovery all material information casting a shadow on a government witness whose credibility  you're dealing with a government cooperating witness you have a higher burden of disclosure to prevent dishonesty to prevent treachery rivendell lying under oath i understand your argument on this record you met that cross examine him about his involvement with m k with hammer with spectrum with numerous other companies that sold pseudoephedrine besides dan rosen in addition to that we showed him to be they showed conducting committing perjury in his application for false identifications to d m v he and they were able to show on cross examination that he had threatened violence and that he ran with violent people  and when the government had the brief team in advance of trial and he told them that he did in later examination he was shown to know about the product going t honor i see that i have a little bit of time left on the reasonable cause to believe the issue i think that our brief is pretty thorough the one thing is that in attempting to attack the statute on its face the defendants must bring that issue before the court by way of an allegation that it is unconstitutional because it's a  court held in easy rider freedom fight that they couldn't do that they couldn't make a facial challenge to it like that absent first amendment issues instead they would only be able to bring it as as applied challenge preparation for argument that i had failed to address their argument regarding sentencing disparity and i confess i overlooked that and i would have made time in our room in my extensive had i realized that but i would like to refer to the court to the government's argument in pages seventy seven through eighty six of the defendant rosen supplemental submission where the government addressed the reasons for the disparate treatment of dan rose and from all the other defendants including that he rose and for one major reason he got a role like announcement for his leadership in addition to that his perjury was much more sophisticated than his wife's in the record well in the courts file in documents for sixty six and the district judge did in fact say that the sentencing disparity issue should have been based on nationwide court and so i'm not familiar with his practice i do know that in this case he did not require of the government the showing that he had to require in order to make a determination that there would be non disclosure under brady or under jenks he just simply had no information before him the government has said well you had enough because there was information about ongoing investigations in the material team was given however and i'm assuming that he read them although it would be quite a feat given the little bit of time he had in the the voluminous material but assuming that he did in fact read the the problem becomes that he had nothing in the materials we told him if these investigations had concluded already who it was that would be protected by not disclosing them what the purpose was where they were headed when they were supposed to conclude he knew nothing that would enable him to do that wing unbalancing he was required to do and failed to do before he decided not to allow disclosure of these materials and finally i think i hope that i have finally understood the court's question about it's very such a big guy on our guys worst i our point is very he was too sophisticated to let that information be known to any of his tools in this process and so i hope that the courts issue i think you think the bottom line is our clients were it was a question of did they have enough impeachment there was significant impeachment we don't argue with that we think there should have been more but they were deprived of