Good morning, Your Honor. Barry Mars, appearing on behalf of the Pellent. I'm going to focus my argument today. I'm going to need you to speak up. Okay. Into the mic. To the mic and speak clearly and loudly. Yes, Your Honor. The clock is counting down. I know. I'm going to address the Commerce Clerk issue principally. If the court has questions about any of the other issues, not sure I'll be prepared to answer them. But the real issue in this case is whether or not a statute that was clearly designed to deal with importation of women in undislavery type conditions, into state transportation of those women's frequently for prostitution purposes, but not exclusively, whether that can be applied to a purely local street corner prostitution act, simply because the prostitute used condoms. Well, it wasn't simply because of that. Wasn't there was evidence that the hotel or motel at which the underline charge comes from was one nearer interstate-freeway, frequently what did by interstate travelers, and there was evidence that made up a great evidence. But I just want to make sure I know a lot. No, I know. And there was banking done with interstate banks. Right
. Well, let's start with that. The fact that cash was paid and put into a bank hardly makes a local matter federal, because every time we use currency, we're using an item that is traveled in interstate commerce, because the currency is printed in Texas and in Washington, D.C. So we have a federal government where we have different, we have overlapping jurisdictions sometimes, but there's federal jurisdiction of matters of national importance, and then there's local jurisdiction, and there needs to be a line between them so that federal jurisdiction doesn't become available by inventive use. But let me ask you, why doesn't race just for closure out and out right attack? I'm sorry? Race versus... I'm sorry, okay. Because it's not that kind of a case. Race? It's the principle that race stands for. Yes, but it's an entirely different context, and not just because it's marijuana, because leaving aside the social societal implications of... Medical marijuana. I understand that. Ronan tirely in this great state, right, and used entirely by the locals. I understand that. But the difference is that race is simply a case that comes from work at RISF Philburn
. With RISF Philburn, it's a commodity, and a local production of a commodity can affect national market of that commodity, either by producing it, with holding it, using it locally. This is not a commodity. Well, Congress said in the... Was it the Trafficking Act? Right. That it was trying to address a problem that extends nationwide. Right, but a series of... This is just one part of that overall problem. Right, but federal jurisdiction can't be asserted where it's a series of local problems that happen nationally. Right, but what about... It's a case..
. What about US versus walls? Are you familiar with that case? Which one? Walls, W. Not off the top, Your Honor. Well, it's the case. It's very similar to this one, and it seems like we have foreclosed your clients' ability to challenge under this argument, because there we affirm the conviction of a local Pimp whose activities, like this one, were entirely local. I mean, it seems like it's on all four. I'm at a disadvantage, Your Honor. The government didn't cite it. I didn't find it in my researches at a relatively news case. Yes. Well, February of 2015, it's been around for a while. Okay, well, they missed it. I missed it. What was the basis in that case? It's similar. It's the conviction of a local Pimp whose activities were similar like this, and we have the TVPA may regulate any individual instance of conduct with a diminimus effect on interstate commerce. So what was the connection to the interstate commerce there? Was it condoms or was it health-on-core? No, it was not the same thing that there was not enough local. I think there was a hotel that was used similar to this one that was right off the interstate that seemed to be sufficient, if I recall correctly. Well, you know, I apologize for obviously deficient research. I didn't see that case, and the government didn't present it otherwise
. Well, deal with the 11th Circuit case then, with Evans. Well, the Evans case simply, there was no analysis. You just think it's wrong. Yeah. But we would be creating a circuit split if we followed your argument. It happened before. I know, but if it's given me a good reason, I don't know. Because Evans didn't really analyze the situation. There was also, as I recall, there were other factors in addition to the condoms and the use of the hotel that they viewed warranted federal jurisdiction. But it has no analysis. For instance, to use condoms as a means of asserting jurisdiction, I mean, there are 450 million condoms sold every year. Apparently, none made in California. I was surprised to learn. Well, I had to really investigate this subject until I had this case. And apparently Trochins have 70% of the market, and they're made in Virginia. Should be made by the University of Southern California. Well, be that as it may. I realize the symbolism there
. But in any event, to make use of condoms a point of federal jurisdiction means that if you use the condoms, you use Trochins condoms in Virginia, they want to stay commerce. Now, I didn't think Congress meant the paper of Virginia over other states because they haven't the manufactured condoms locally. Well, if you use it as a sole basis, perhaps, but there does seem to be a finding by Congress here that there's an interstate trade in Europe. Correct. You know women. And that even local transactions affect that interstate trade. Why isn't that an appropriate commerce course? Because, first of all, I would disagree to the extent that you read the introduction to the act. And they're talking about people who import women, often underage women from other countries in the United States, or transport them from one state to another. There's not one mention in the act of the intent of Congress to regulate local acts of prostitution. Nor is this a situation where a small act can be part of interstate commerce because it's aggregated. Aggregation occurs in commodities. It doesn't occur in prostitution because prostitution is almost by its nature a solitary instance unrelated to other acts of prostitution that are going on in other communities or in other states. There's no evidence that a telephone was used. There's no evidence that the defendant brought the prostitute from one state to another. There's no other things that the act was after. And what will happen if we fasten on the incidental use of things manufactured outside the state? We lose the basis for distinguishing between state jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction. Like I said earlier, race just seems to foreclose that argument. Well, it does in a commodity case
. Wasn't this your woman treated as a commodity? That's not really because there's no futures in the prostitution market, but there are futures in the beef market, in the oil market. Is that officially done that way? But there are established prices and true someone dumps a whole bunch of marijuana on the market and the price is going to go down. Whereas if someone hires a bunch of prostitutes, the national market is not going to be affected. It's a solitary, individual enterprise, if one is going to put a label on it as opposed to a commodity. So as I understand your argument on the Commerce Clause, it's a two-pronged-art attack, just a direct-out attack, a facial attack. And then assuming that it was stands that the government would have to show at least a de minimus impact on interstate commerce. Well, I have to say facts of what you've been talking about here regarding the condoms, the hotel, the banking next to the highway, the freeway. The way I would distinguish between race and in this case is like in McCoy, where you had a woman take a picture with a camera that was purchased that came from out of state, with film that came from out of state. And there is incidental to the alleged crime. Everything we use, the clothes you wear, the shoes you wear, the toothpaste, everything just about can be traced into state commerce. So if using something that was made into state commerce is sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction over the crime, then there is no boundary between local jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction. All right. Let me ask you just one, one of your other arguments, the witness tampering convictions and the jury instruction that was used for witness tampering. The jury instruction, okay. You challenged, so in the instruction, the court added the little clause about the defendant does not need to know that his acts are unlawful. Okay. The argument was, while that takes away the knowing mens rea element. But was the heart of your, what were you trying to convey? The men's rea argument is that in Alonus, the recent Supreme Court case, the court held that recklessness cannot be the standard for a criminal conviction that there has to be some knowing involved
. And here you had a 13 year old, which we would assume people can tell a 13 year old, but this is a 5, 8, 200 pound woman who is walking the host role, the place for prostitutes congregate by herself at night. There's a lion's really stand for the proposition that there must be mens rea and a criminal conviction or only under that statute. I think it says in general there has to be a man. Well, in general, and this one is not a strict liability statute, but can't we have strict liability statutes? Can't we have a statute that says if you engage in a sex, sex with a woman under the age of 16, its statutory rate, even if you had no reason to believe she was under 16? I believe there are some statutes. So why, I mean, why not here? What the statute says is either having reason to know that she's under an age or having to be opportunity to observe her for some period of time. Why is either of those uncomfortable? Because having the ability to observe her period of time does this necessarily lead to a reasonable conclusion that you can tell her age. And so it's insufficient. The jury verdicts, the form of the jury verdict here was interesting because it gave the, it asked the jury specifically to find whether or not he knew whether he had a reasonable opportunity to observe and they checked the box indicating both. So you could construe, you have to construe that that he knew she was under the age of 13. Well, the problem with putting too much weight on the jury findings in this case is that my client was evicted from the courtroom before closing arguments. He was not part of the instructional conference whether or not he, whether or not he provoked that or was responsible that it's another issue. But the fact that there was only one side presented to the jury undermines reliability, whether or not that was unavoidable is another story. But the necessary effect of the being one argument undermines reliability of the factual findings in the case. Let me ask you about the witness tampering with respect to Kelly. The evidence is fairly thin about witness tampering, although I think pretty sufficient about obstruction of justice. Address Kelly for me. It may not make any difference to your clients as well. Since the sentences were concurrent, but you asked us to review it
. Yeah, I'm trying to remember which one Kelly was. I'm sorry. I apologize, you're right. I really focused on the, you're the commerce. And you cover it in your brief. I like to leave a few minutes. Okay, you can have you can have some time. One on one. Okay, thank you. Thank you, council. Good morning. May I please the court? My name is Michael Fry and I represent the United States. When Maurice Hunt prostituted a 13 year old girl, he engaged in precisely the type of conduct that the TVAPA was enacted to address. And this is true despite the fact that the nature of his conduct was local. Congress's ability to use the commerce clause to reach purely local activities was made very clear in the right cases of court has pointed out. So let's assume in this case that there was that the condoms were made in California and the banking was done in California and the hotel was not anywhere near an interstate. I'm thinking of all these always restaurant cats and back versus McCong is after what the Roberts court has done with the commerce clause. Would that still be enough to you? Your Honor, I've actually thought about that
. I do. That's not I'm not sure. I have no idea. I can give them to you, but I will say that at least in terms of this court as it's as it's shown in the wall's case, all this required is a is a diminimous impact on court. I would look at cases like Phil Burton cases like the right case where really the seem to the courts looking at the impact on society as a whole is not acting on looking at the impact on commerce. They're not asking whether marijuana, for instance, and rake cross property lines or in filiburn weather weather. I think there was very clear that the that the the wheat was being used on the farm. I mean, so it seems to me that in some context the court could say we're looking at the over. We're looking at what Congress intended to target. Could you help me out on the witness tampering? Yes, and I do. I mean, and I'm not worried about the instructions for the moment. I'm just worried about the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to Kelly. What's there to suggest that this defendant was tampering with her testimony? I understand why he was trying to tell her not to show up. But tell me what I think you need more for witness tampering, don't you? I would like to on that matter address something that Mr. Morris thank you raised in his and his brief. This is on page 14 and he addressed whether one particular part of the transcript, whether the conversation was actually between Mr. Hunt and and in K or Miss Kelly. And it was a little bit difficult at the time of trial because we're using these transcripts
. There was actually the recording at the time. But I think as you go back and look at the transcripts and then you look at the actual testimony, there was a part. Yeah, and I couldn't find anything in the testimony that tied it up. Tell me where you think it ties it up. Well, I first needed to let you know on page 14 of my brief, there's this statement that is attributed to Hunt that he's made this conversation with in K. That's not correct, is it? That's not correct. And I think what it was is she takes up the phone later. She's in later involvement conversation. Okay, so take that tape conversation out for a second. What evidence is there a witness tampering with respect to Kelly? Well, I think partly you have to look at the background and look at their relationship. And first of all, it's one that had been premise on violence. So she knew him to be a violent person. Somebody who she knew she knew would be about somebody who would use violence against her. I mean, to him, there is a phone call where he says this is not the phone call that was in the transcript. But while she's testifying, there's one that the jury heard. Yes, but and I would it's at SER 97. This is actually the courtroom transcript in Bay East. She says basically he said I snitched on him. And then she understood in her line of work, prostitution, she knew that snitches lay in ditches. So there is a separate phone call that was not one of the ones that was brought into court where she went. No, wait, I want to make sure this is one that was before the jury. No? Yes, this was this was her testimony before the jury. She testified about she testified. Did you didn't bring in an actual recording of the call, but this was a testimony about the call? Yes, there were other calls that were brought in. This particular one that you testified about was not there. And give me the testimony again that you think supports a wit as opposed to an obstruction of justice charge. As opposed to don't show up as opposed to when you show up, I don't want you to tell the truth. Because that seems to me roughly the division between obstruction of justice and witness temperate. Well, and it would be the Bay, he said basically she said basically he said I snitched on him and those parts and quotes. And then in her line of work, she understood that to mean snitches lay in ditches. And so let me again, this may not make any practical difference to this defendant, but if I say to somebody don't show up at this trial and snitch on me, is that witness tempering or obstruction of justice? Well, I believe that would for it would be obstruction. Sure. I'm fine. And because I'm trying to keep somebody from preventing testimony, what is there to suggest that I'm trying to intimidate them to give false testimony? Or? Well, I think it's tampering one of the elements is that they did so intending to influence, delay or prevent the testimony. I think the issue would be trying to keep her out of court. It doesn't want her to be in court
. And then she understood in her line of work, prostitution, she knew that snitches lay in ditches. So there is a separate phone call that was not one of the ones that was brought into court where she went. No, wait, I want to make sure this is one that was before the jury. No? Yes, this was this was her testimony before the jury. She testified about she testified. Did you didn't bring in an actual recording of the call, but this was a testimony about the call? Yes, there were other calls that were brought in. This particular one that you testified about was not there. And give me the testimony again that you think supports a wit as opposed to an obstruction of justice charge. As opposed to don't show up as opposed to when you show up, I don't want you to tell the truth. Because that seems to me roughly the division between obstruction of justice and witness temperate. Well, and it would be the Bay, he said basically she said basically he said I snitched on him and those parts and quotes. And then in her line of work, she understood that to mean snitches lay in ditches. And so let me again, this may not make any practical difference to this defendant, but if I say to somebody don't show up at this trial and snitch on me, is that witness tempering or obstruction of justice? Well, I believe that would for it would be obstruction. Sure. I'm fine. And because I'm trying to keep somebody from preventing testimony, what is there to suggest that I'm trying to intimidate them to give false testimony? Or? Well, I think it's tampering one of the elements is that they did so intending to influence, delay or prevent the testimony. I think the issue would be trying to keep her out of court. It doesn't want her to be in court. So what's the difference between obstruction and tampering then? I think it's very, very close. What did you argue to the jury? I was not actually the one that argued. Is the record reflected to the jury? I was a pretty generalized argument to the jury and I specifically don't recall what was going to happen. So if I had to, your brief for one, you'd just say look at the other on that, tampering and the obstruction. It seems like it's the same thing. I view it as the same thing. Well, then what, but there's separate crimes with separate penalties. One's more serious than the other, isn't it? In terms, I cannot speak to that, actually. But what facts would you point to then that specifically would support a conviction for witness tampering? Okay. Well, there was the phone call that was, he made a phone call exhibit 7A-6. His phone calls to Tiffany Errors and there was some debate about what was really said there. What did you say about Kelly? We're talking about Kelly now. Right. And this is him reaching out to somebody else to intimidate. Sure. What did you say? Okay. Call in K, and I think you probably used your name, and put pressure on they ask. Keep it 100% in the hood
. So what's the difference between obstruction and tampering then? I think it's very, very close. What did you argue to the jury? I was not actually the one that argued. Is the record reflected to the jury? I was a pretty generalized argument to the jury and I specifically don't recall what was going to happen. So if I had to, your brief for one, you'd just say look at the other on that, tampering and the obstruction. It seems like it's the same thing. I view it as the same thing. Well, then what, but there's separate crimes with separate penalties. One's more serious than the other, isn't it? In terms, I cannot speak to that, actually. But what facts would you point to then that specifically would support a conviction for witness tampering? Okay. Well, there was the phone call that was, he made a phone call exhibit 7A-6. His phone calls to Tiffany Errors and there was some debate about what was really said there. What did you say about Kelly? We're talking about Kelly now. Right. And this is him reaching out to somebody else to intimidate. Sure. What did you say? Okay. Call in K, and I think you probably used your name, and put pressure on they ask. Keep it 100% in the hood. And then there was testimony that keeping it in the hood meant not to cooperate with law enforcement. Now, there was a discrepancy between what the transcript said and what, how the testimony came out and that. But in essence, it was that put pressure on her, basically asking this one witness to put pressure on, on Natalie Kelly. Not to go to the, not to attend the trial or not to cooperate with the cops. Well, that would, yes, it would be to not cooperate with law enforcement. But I mean, in that, from their perspective, it's going to be court, it's going to be law enforcement, it's going to be prosecutors. It's going to be police. It's to not be involved in the legal system with the jury told that law enforcement is encompasses. No, matter in court. It was not. See, I think what I'm struggling with, and I think you can see it in my colleagues' questions, is if I tell somebody the cops are investigating me, clam up. Don't talk to them. That sounds like obstruction of justice. If I get charged and I don't have any said anything more in the meantime, is that carry over to the court proceedings? Well, to step back and just answer part of your question, there was one other comment she made. There was one other comment that was on one of the transcripts of the phone calls, SER221. And he says they, and I think the word FBI was implied there, can't prove this case without you. So he's talking to her, talking to her directly, say they can't prove the case without you, implied that is, don't come to court. Given, and you look at his relationship with her
. And then there was testimony that keeping it in the hood meant not to cooperate with law enforcement. Now, there was a discrepancy between what the transcript said and what, how the testimony came out and that. But in essence, it was that put pressure on her, basically asking this one witness to put pressure on, on Natalie Kelly. Not to go to the, not to attend the trial or not to cooperate with the cops. Well, that would, yes, it would be to not cooperate with law enforcement. But I mean, in that, from their perspective, it's going to be court, it's going to be law enforcement, it's going to be prosecutors. It's going to be police. It's to not be involved in the legal system with the jury told that law enforcement is encompasses. No, matter in court. It was not. See, I think what I'm struggling with, and I think you can see it in my colleagues' questions, is if I tell somebody the cops are investigating me, clam up. Don't talk to them. That sounds like obstruction of justice. If I get charged and I don't have any said anything more in the meantime, is that carry over to the court proceedings? Well, to step back and just answer part of your question, there was one other comment she made. There was one other comment that was on one of the transcripts of the phone calls, SER221. And he says they, and I think the word FBI was implied there, can't prove this case without you. So he's talking to her, talking to her directly, say they can't prove the case without you, implied that is, don't come to court. Given, and you look at his relationship with her. So you're going to refresh my recollection. You already been charged at that point? Yes, he was in jail at that point. Okay, this is a jail call. Okay. Yeah, I guess, well, he said they can't prove this case, I guess that meant that the case had been filed. Yes. The conduct here, there was a pretty good gap in time from the time the conduct until he actually, the case was filed and he was in court. Yeah, and I know he was in jail. I didn't know if the case had been filed yet. I don't know if there was, it was in that gap, period or. So was the argument here that this was intimidation or was it threatens or was it correctly persuaded? I'm not precisely certain how it was argued. I think it would be, what's your argument? Whether it would be intimidation, I think it would definitely be intimidation. What if she said and she didn't? That's cool. I never want to be a snitch. You didn't have to tell me that. That intimidation. We're still looking at his attempt. Right, but I'm saying, does it depend on the subjective reaction of the listener? No, it doesn't
. So you're going to refresh my recollection. You already been charged at that point? Yes, he was in jail at that point. Okay, this is a jail call. Okay. Yeah, I guess, well, he said they can't prove this case, I guess that meant that the case had been filed. Yes. The conduct here, there was a pretty good gap in time from the time the conduct until he actually, the case was filed and he was in court. Yeah, and I know he was in jail. I didn't know if the case had been filed yet. I don't know if there was, it was in that gap, period or. So was the argument here that this was intimidation or was it threatens or was it correctly persuaded? I'm not precisely certain how it was argued. I think it would be, what's your argument? Whether it would be intimidation, I think it would definitely be intimidation. What if she said and she didn't? That's cool. I never want to be a snitch. You didn't have to tell me that. That intimidation. We're still looking at his attempt. Right, but I'm saying, does it depend on the subjective reaction of the listener? No, it doesn't. So if Miss Kelly was, are you asking about the obstruction? I'm sorry to be narrowing about the temperate. Camper? Camper? So if the listener says, don't worry, don't worry, Mr. Pimp, I would never turn on you. You don't have to tell me that. Is that a, is that temperate? Well, within the tampering, it's, I think the attempt is what's important. You're looking at his mind, said what's he intending to do. Whether he tempted to do so and did so intending to influence delay. Right, so her reaction doesn't matter. Yes, Your Honor. So if you call an accomplice and say, remember, we all agree not to snitch, then you engage in witness tampering. Because the accomplice says, I remember, and I'm the kind of guy who would never snitch. Still witness tampering. Yes, and I'm not sure if the attempt requires some furtherance beyond that. What does corruptly persuade me in the statute? It says whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens or corruptly persuades another person. I don't have the statute in front of me. I think it is defined there. And I think there was, the jury was actually given, I believe a definition of what, Well, they were given a definition of corruptly in the destruction of justice charge. Okay
. So if Miss Kelly was, are you asking about the obstruction? I'm sorry to be narrowing about the temperate. Camper? Camper? So if the listener says, don't worry, don't worry, Mr. Pimp, I would never turn on you. You don't have to tell me that. Is that a, is that temperate? Well, within the tampering, it's, I think the attempt is what's important. You're looking at his mind, said what's he intending to do. Whether he tempted to do so and did so intending to influence delay. Right, so her reaction doesn't matter. Yes, Your Honor. So if you call an accomplice and say, remember, we all agree not to snitch, then you engage in witness tampering. Because the accomplice says, I remember, and I'm the kind of guy who would never snitch. Still witness tampering. Yes, and I'm not sure if the attempt requires some furtherance beyond that. What does corruptly persuade me in the statute? It says whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens or corruptly persuades another person. I don't have the statute in front of me. I think it is defined there. And I think there was, the jury was actually given, I believe a definition of what, Well, they were given a definition of corruptly in the destruction of justice charge. Okay. But not in the, in the witness tampering. I, I did not come prepared to answer that question. Sorry. No objection to the instruction on that ground, sir. Yeah. We're trying, assuming that does mean the same thing as in the obstruction of justice charge? I would assume so by that. I do not know. So do you just routinely charge when you charge obstruction, you charge tampering and when you charge tampering, you charge obstruction? And there's no difference. You know, I, not having, not being the one that filed this, I can't really. Well, but you're here arguing this. So, okay. You know, I know that there are differences between the two. What are they? What is it? Certainly the closing argument didn't suggest there were differences. The government said you've heard all this evidence and it establishes both obstruction and tampering. Or roughly, where to that fact? Well, with respect to, respect to obstruction, I mean, there has to be pending proceeding. I mean, that was something that brought up into some of the, I can speak in the microphone. Yes, that there needs to be actually a pending proceeding for obstruction. That, that's the main one I would note
. But not in the, in the witness tampering. I, I did not come prepared to answer that question. Sorry. No objection to the instruction on that ground, sir. Yeah. We're trying, assuming that does mean the same thing as in the obstruction of justice charge? I would assume so by that. I do not know. So do you just routinely charge when you charge obstruction, you charge tampering and when you charge tampering, you charge obstruction? And there's no difference. You know, I, not having, not being the one that filed this, I can't really. Well, but you're here arguing this. So, okay. You know, I know that there are differences between the two. What are they? What is it? Certainly the closing argument didn't suggest there were differences. The government said you've heard all this evidence and it establishes both obstruction and tampering. Or roughly, where to that fact? Well, with respect to, respect to obstruction, I mean, there has to be pending proceeding. I mean, that was something that brought up into some of the, I can speak in the microphone. Yes, that there needs to be actually a pending proceeding for obstruction. That, that's the main one I would note. So, is tampering a subset of that then? No, I don't think it's- Get a lesser included? I don't believe so. What's the difference? Okay. Well, as I mentioned- Tempering seems like there would have to be a proceeding as well, no. Well, Desri require a witness, but I think that they could possibly be in the context of where you might imagine that a case might be filed. I really cannot speak to that and I don't want to overstep my bounds there. All right. Any other questions? Not really. Thank you. I find the section I briefed dealing with Ms. Kelly. I think the critical testimony as to her in terms of obstruction of justice and or tampering, is she was asked, Mr. Hunt ever suggests you that you not make it to court. He answered, he just asked me, was I going to come? How did he ask you? He just asked me whether I was going to show up. Now, how does that become obstruction of justice or tampering? It's a question. You're going to testify. I asked that of witness all the time. Am I obstructing justice? What about the conversation that the government referred to? Yeah, and the government- The government's transcript that I introduced of this conversation doesn't say what the government alleged. It says, you know what I mean? Call manner
. So, is tampering a subset of that then? No, I don't think it's- Get a lesser included? I don't believe so. What's the difference? Okay. Well, as I mentioned- Tempering seems like there would have to be a proceeding as well, no. Well, Desri require a witness, but I think that they could possibly be in the context of where you might imagine that a case might be filed. I really cannot speak to that and I don't want to overstep my bounds there. All right. Any other questions? Not really. Thank you. I find the section I briefed dealing with Ms. Kelly. I think the critical testimony as to her in terms of obstruction of justice and or tampering, is she was asked, Mr. Hunt ever suggests you that you not make it to court. He answered, he just asked me, was I going to come? How did he ask you? He just asked me whether I was going to show up. Now, how does that become obstruction of justice or tampering? It's a question. You're going to testify. I asked that of witness all the time. Am I obstructing justice? What about the conversation that the government referred to? Yeah, and the government- The government's transcript that I introduced of this conversation doesn't say what the government alleged. It says, you know what I mean? Call manner. Put pressure on that as, tell the bitch to keep indisternable, keep it hot. I have no idea what that means. Well, the government also mentioned the statement that he also told Kelly that they can't prove this case without you. That's a statement of fact. I mean, it may well be. If she's a complainant, they can't prove it out. That doesn't mean don't come to court. But we have to look at the evidence and the light most favorable to the government, don't we? Absolutely. So, I mean, I know that's an argument that you could make. You can't infer that don't come to court from the government can't prove its case without you. Well, because if the government said we need you, we can't prove our case without you. Would that be intimidating the witness? It's not the government saying we can't prove the case without you. But it's neutral and it's important. Well, it's not neutral and it's important if she has information that would prove the government's case. I mean, the negative pregnant there is your bad witness as far as I'm concerned. The government can't prove it. Well, look, Judge, the fact of the matter is the reason they put these charges in the case is to suggest consciousness of guilt. Not because this makes any difference in the overall result in the case
. Put pressure on that as, tell the bitch to keep indisternable, keep it hot. I have no idea what that means. Well, the government also mentioned the statement that he also told Kelly that they can't prove this case without you. That's a statement of fact. I mean, it may well be. If she's a complainant, they can't prove it out. That doesn't mean don't come to court. But we have to look at the evidence and the light most favorable to the government, don't we? Absolutely. So, I mean, I know that's an argument that you could make. You can't infer that don't come to court from the government can't prove its case without you. Well, because if the government said we need you, we can't prove our case without you. Would that be intimidating the witness? It's not the government saying we can't prove the case without you. But it's neutral and it's important. Well, it's not neutral and it's important if she has information that would prove the government's case. I mean, the negative pregnant there is your bad witness as far as I'm concerned. The government can't prove it. Well, look, Judge, the fact of the matter is the reason they put these charges in the case is to suggest consciousness of guilt. Not because this makes any difference in the overall result in the case. Because only a guilty person would intimidate a witness. Can we go back to walls for a second? Sure. And I know you, but I guess the question I'd ask you to address and you might want to address it post-argument if you can. Since the government just cites it now and wasn't at its brief. It seems directly on point with respect to the constitutionality of the act. There is a Craigslist advertisement there. Well, that's different. I know, but the court says it doesn't matter how much interstate commerce is involved. Well, you know, it's very much like the 11 circuit case. You may not like the analysis, but it's one of ours. If I would have the court's permission to submit a letter brief on it, again, I didn't... Well, if we want one, we'll issue a post-hearing order directing supplemental briefs. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you very much, Your Honor. If we think it's necessary
. Well, from the tenor. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Council. The matter is submitted at this time