their pension for this court is now in session. God save the United States and this honorable court. We'll be seeing it. Good. Good morning. Good morning. We'll start with the U.S. versus Munshik. Let's see. We met 13 minutes for the court. Did you want any reserved? I'm going to have a question. We'll divide the time. Seven for the day. We'll take a minute for a bottle out of her time. Okay. The court name is Peter Goldberg. It's my responsibility and privilege to strike to represent the Ellen Trawback Court out. It's one of the defendants below. I'm going to have to protect it
. I believe two strong reasons requiring to try to hold the accounts for the proper cross-explanation of the defendant and the exclusion of significance are a testimony from three defense witnesses. I do hope to at least discuss the cross-explanation issue of time. I'm going to have to ask the court to start with the discussion of the Department of the Sufficiency of some Council member. I'm not concerned about that. Why did you not raise that during the trial before the trial? I mean, wasn't it obvious at that time? Well, I wasn't involved. I didn't answer that first person. It was difficult to go outside the record and answer the line question. I cannot have a separate little bit of counsel to notice what should have noticed. But everything that's obvious and I'm certainly qualified to play an error in the Senate rule 12 feet specifically extends this issue from any requirement to being raised before trial. I don't have any reason to think and will suggest that it was deliberately not raised before the trial. So, how do you do it? Are you doing Montchite and Cordero together? I never say Cordero but we could worry about weeks of cross-adopted. That's why you have to. That's why you need to consider two of the same size. It's often complicated to recount the hard both of them. That I'm talking about in the meeting issue. But I'm talking Cordero. I'm like the count 25 of the three I'm talking about didn't happen to charge Montchite. So, it's not perfect to him. Well, I've been served about the indictments with what I was not raised before because there are lawyers who strategically would previously not raise something like that but to have
... I'm not. The last I don't have any reason to think that that's the case here. What we have is a different standard of review which accounts for that possibility of the least to come. All the violations that come in the 12-day will be seen immediately after the draft of the indictment on period for Montchite. That's the difference. Actually, it's... Yeah, it's a... As for the point, it was an idea to look at the indictment as we had to consume it, but it feels correct for the validity. It seems to be very higher. It is. For the old cases, I'm not mad if she's sometimes, sometimes you don't. But let's look at this particular indictment. So, we have a count 13, there's a charge under the general conspiracy statute
. There's no conspiracy counts that we're talking about here. It has to do so. We have two layers of complication. We have a solution. We're just talking about that also. That conspiracy to make another offense, if there is a case that I'm saying does not have to allegional of the details about the other offense in the same way we expect a substantive count. Charging that offense. So, we have a count 13, that's a conspiracy by the 2016-66, which makes no mention of the principal men's way of offense. But we know that under the substance of the law, conspiracy with respect to men's way of the government has to prove from cases that at least certainly the same. And it's very a conspiracy as for the subsequent offense, because we're supposed to commit offense. Therefore, it follows that that conspiracy to commit a 666 offense must be. So, it needs to be co-opplied in the sense that using 666, that being held by the past or proof, it has to be alleged in the United States of America. And so, the only thing that we care about, which is the sudden attack of the general conspiracy, need not specifically, can all be out of the normal armaments. And not any, and not any, not even also. Both of which proceed skear. And skear, which discusses those cases, and clarifies that establishes the principal law of the circuit on the subject, was talked about in the House of America. And here's for Congress, the federal jurisdiction element. We have that defect in Council 19 and 25 here. 19 were moved to Congress, the House for Object Instortion was an effect on Congress, and from the US, in Ginadi, for the November Act, as a legal court, that means the conspiracy was a full effect, Congress's word to be consummate
. That's not a alleged word, it's more substance than a credible substance, because of the liberal construction element. In Count 19, like was in Count 25, there's nothing about the either state, Congress, the impact of the alleged conspiracy to commit wrong and wrong trick. So you think of the purpose of the charge in the indictment, which is to apply the defendment, fear of the charge, and let the defend, and then, in case of the purpose. The indictment serves the multiple purposes, that is a critical purpose, and for that purpose, we will, principally, the purpose of the jury to discuss the facts of all the details of the indictment. The indictment is important, that protects against double jeopardy, if there's no indictment later, or the variance or constructive amendment. But there's also a requirement that the indictment should be resettled jurisdiction, that on the edge of that case, charges a federal offense, and that means that essentially, the elements must show a federal offense without the jurisdiction. You simply don't have the obligation of a federal offense, you don't have a federal amendment, fundamentally missing the co-oper of a federal amendment, right of not to proceed except upon indictment, if there will be. To any point, does that in the indictment, the U.S. attorney has to link the offense to the Congresswoman, and another one of the former judges? The federal offense, however, is the defense of the federal jurisdiction, in the 666, it's not Congress clauses, it's affecting the program, receiving federal funds, and the spending clause, and requirement, or Congress clause, or requirement, or whatever it may be. The post office, or whatever it is, yes. Have we ever required any attention, the foreign party, and the indictment sphere? This does require that, though, 30. Essentially, the inter-site case will be second-side to the Senate, then. So, I think you can click on that there, I am already at the 9.97 minutes, but I do most say that the commission is actually the cross-examination of Mr. Cogaro Actrile, was intimately structured around the public process, which was prohibited by the school of inherits, and refunded the indictment in the battalop. And the reason is playing out here and was not in the battalop, is if the effect is safe for that thought, is that there was not here the independent, corroborating evidence as in the battalop, the dual sets of time cards, if I remember correctly. Here we have a credibility case, and this rule will protect against unfair, credibly attacking the cross-examination, where the defendant or another witness has asked a comment on the credibility of the government's witnesses, aggravated by the government's closing, which proves the perpetuous here, where it's a theme of the government's closing, and what the prosecutor's saying is closing, and then the defendant was actually brought out on the cross. So, central three set up the fact that he took the witness and said, I'm going to answer any question about the truth that you really asked me
. I don't think that's so good of an unuseable tactic by trial counsel to do the direct act, but I don't believe that. I think that comment could possibly be considered as a way of building rules of evidence or a discourse that defines the scope of cross. No, that's only a fact of evidence. Thank you. Good morning, my name is Lisa Matheson representing the Pound and Track. As Mr. Goldberg noted, we'll do a joint in the issue that Mr. Goldberg had just addressed. There are four additional issues raised in our brief. Two playing error review of instructional error. One on the Hobbes Act and one on the Section 666 charge. The requirement of still a record, the still a record, which is that we'd also require a reversal of the tax count against Mr. Mindtack, is the corruption counts of a verse. And finally, the improv of the district quits having enhanced Mr. Mindtack's sentence through a structural justice. Your Honor, on the Hobbes Act question, this is an error review. But the Hobbes Act instruction in this case was playing error because it collapses two elements that were the Supreme Court in evidence and this Court in urban have treated it as disdaped. Those two elements are the so-called status element of the offense that is the authority to take official action or the ability to take official action. Would you be suggesting that we review or revise the Third Circuit of Normal Journal instructions, which is really necessary for the judgment of the case? The normal instruction is incorrect and we're absolutely bet is our position
. I should at least have the power to do that. And the only exact that applies in the bank. Well, the normal instructions are not binding on this Court as the Court goes, the Court does not approve them. In fact, in some case, law is referred to them as, quote, rather tangential authority. And they simply reflect no judgment of any judge of this Court. And particularly because the instructions here contradict the urban case and contradict the evidence or the court of cases in the court, they certainly cannot be treated as authority. So, your Honor's question is asking whether they need to be revised, they need to be revised, but not by this Court because they are not a concussion of this Court to be given as. Could you go right on the problem, John? In the instructions, John? Yeah, you know where the difference is actually here on the key difference on which we're going to be in this case is the reference to the mental state of the knowing that is on behalf of the public official. The knowing that he's being author-paying in exchange for his ability to do official acts. The instructions we produce in its entirety in my break up, you just go over in 13 and we index at 9.34 and 35. That state in the relevant honor is the key error here because we've thrown to the exchange of an ability in addition to being really somewhat contemplable, considering to be a honor. It's a killer in the case law and it collapses to a critical evidence of harm's act extortion. When being the inducence of this Court goes to Supreme Court, it has been said that there will be no inducement, so better force, for example, for a color of official right extortion because what is called the status element of the offense, that is the ability to take official action, so it applies to inducement. But that is separate from the question that we know will exchange. And the problem with the destruction that the District Court gave here is that it collapses the two. It's that the exchange is going to be a good idea to do official acts. That problem is compounded, you're honest, by both the beginning and the end points of the instruction in which the District Court also said, number one, that defendant commits the crime of extortion if your users hit office to obtain a payment value to which he is not entitled. Again, that is referencing the near status as a public official, assets and exchange and the finding of the crime, which by the terms that entered the instruction by saying, you must find the other reasonable doubt that the defendant public official, again, used his office in order to obtain a payment value
. That criminalized the status of being a public official while receiving a payment and it entirely omitted the requirement of a court of court. But the government points to one part of the instruction where the trial judge did reference language in return for an official act. And as I noted in a further, I believe we think that that language itself has some problems, but we're not raising that as a separate claim of error. What would you have preferred in return for a such pretty clue? This change form can machine an ability to do official acts. My quote with that line, which your other is actually not so much in the freezeology in return for this, the reference to in return for influencing. So what it says is taking or refraining from an official act or influencing an official act. Doesn't that say that it's hard to think about? I think it's, you know, I don't think it's under percent because of the reference to influencing. It is not constantly with this court's case law on quick book. But again, that's not a separate claim of error. I would think to that sentence as the closest that the trial court came to a correct instruction. And with that being the closest, it does not cure the error. You want to have a 666 instructions. They are also playing a little for a different reason. First, this court is never held but 666 requires a quick opa. But as then she'd judge back her told us in the Evans decision that there's no control in the circuit authority is not the determinative of whether there is an error. Every single circuit in our owners to have addressed the question of quick book file in 666 has held that's not the case. 666 bribery requires a quick opa. There are differences in the interpretation to our circuit's different on whether it requires a specific, quick opa. Or an express quick opa
. The circuit's different on whether 666 remains a good 2-leaf theory in addition to a bribery theory. But no one has disagreed that 666 bribery requires a quick opa. And the government here will be a critical concession in its brief. They only disagree that between the parties in this case is whether the reference to the reward language they have confused the jury, they should think that it could convey that a bribery theory. But the government has expressly disclaimed any intent to rely on a grudgesuity theory. Which means that the case in our holding the 666 bribery of its grudges is irrelevant to this court's decision. The only question for this court and on the court to venture certain lawyers opinion in the game case is whether the reference to reward the properly put this condition on a grudgesuity theory that is not charged here and is submitted to the does. Thank you. Thank you. We're here to do the government. May it please the court. Then it is Bruce Allen who has assisted the police. He is turning the police at the state's level to the council. But it's not going to turn it so well. I don't think that the machine, I don't think it will allow me to do the maintenance. I'm sorry for you. I didn't hear it 26. I don't think you have the online panels. I don't want to stop a judge Ross crushing the issue to Mr
. Goldberg. I'm not going to raise the bill. I'm a positive explanation. Following a judge for Wednesday's comment that the primary reason for your claim was to give the defendants nervous of the charges. They knew what the charges were. This was a 52 page indictment that charged them with multiple counts of corruption. Of taking bribes of external payments for numerous people. The fact that count virtue and the minimum of corruptly from that charge did not put them down a path of deception and deceit that they didn't believe that the government was charging them with corrupt acts. There's kind of 13 reference, I mean, include by reference, substantive acts and the claim. It includes various paragraphs of trial accounts that would direct the qualification to paragraphs 70 of count one, which was the amount of services nailed to the account. And those counts, they told the defendants that they solicited blinds and kickbacks as part of this scheme, this paid-and-boy scheme. So they said, I'm using it, that that put them on notice that the government was charging them with acting corruptly. They were soliciting blinds and kickbacks in paragraph 70. In addition, on count 25, which was one and another, the accounts accounts by the defense here, the not-be-puny items is the claim that you didn't specifically elent the knowledge of the proceeds or the illegal proceeds. And I'm going to direct the course of the page, the count 17 and 20, which were operating by reference, which was a specific substantive count of target robbery and extortion, moving to the proceeds that were referencing count 25. That put them on notice that the proceeds that were being ordered were illegal proceeds, coming from lives and extortioned units. So following up just to continue, they were not aware through this indictment, through the incorporated language of supposedly missing elements in these counts. But the count 19, which was being the last count that was a count, that was merely an interstate commerce effect, validation as a claim to missing. But the impact count did its best in the court, it was a blindage
. I would direct the course of the page, which accounts 9, 10, 11, 12, which talked about these events, a commercial interstate count, and direct the course of the page into paragraph 15-E, which talked about contract to be more to the Wutberg International Airport. And we'd direct the course of the page into paragraph 16-E, which talked about a trip that was going around to the California that was thinking that for a contract that he had granted to one of the victims in this case, there was a pre-sort of interstate commerce in these counts. So to say that they will never notice a list of really hard to submit, it is far fetched. And the case there was clearly that we don't have to go that far, because the county, Mr. Goldberg, has signed the court to the Spinner case. But first I mentioned that the Spinner case was not the Spursing case. There was an access device for a subterranean camel that had a missing element. The Spursing charges as the court pointed out earlier are different, but with the bell box, you need not only to hold the subterranean camel, but from the alignment and send the Spursing case to the case law of the circuit as the people have gone back. And I think that the Spursing case was worth a majority of the time. I would like to also point out to the court that the case was not signed by the party in the police. But it's one of Mr. Goldberg's first to move. And I hope to talk about the original bottle. It's called the United States versus Charlock. What's the second name? Charlock C-A-R-T-F-K-2-E-3 Federal Pendits 948. 2008, last year, 2569. So it is a 2008 case. Mr. Goldberg, what do you do if you do something like it all the recent? Is that the name you are? It's a make it all the recent. No, I don't think it's the recent day in 1991, more than case, that's all. And there is a more recent case on this issue that is mentioning the police. It's called Save Up. And that is from 2009. And that's the most recent presidential opinion on this area about conspiracy charges. But this 2008 case I've written out, because it's the name's way out. Which Mr. Goldberg received to think, feel something different, category of year. And it was an honest services fraud. Mr. Goldberg made a same exact argument on the service court. They are saying that the indictment they can split from indictment, they don't too alleged the same as mine, but the defendant. And that he had to know about the public officials, do need to disclose his conflict of interest. And no matter where you can split the indictment, it's not alleged. This court rejected that. That wasn't an alleged opinion. We're not bound to. We're not bound to. We're not bound to
. No, I don't think it's the recent day in 1991, more than case, that's all. And there is a more recent case on this issue that is mentioning the police. It's called Save Up. And that is from 2009. And that's the most recent presidential opinion on this area about conspiracy charges. But this 2008 case I've written out, because it's the name's way out. Which Mr. Goldberg received to think, feel something different, category of year. And it was an honest services fraud. Mr. Goldberg made a same exact argument on the service court. They are saying that the indictment they can split from indictment, they don't too alleged the same as mine, but the defendant. And that he had to know about the public officials, do need to disclose his conflict of interest. And no matter where you can split the indictment, it's not alleged. This court rejected that. That wasn't an alleged opinion. We're not bound to. We're not bound to. We're not bound to. We're not bound to. But Mr. Goldberg has complained to his reply, that we only cited one case for this proposition. And they have friendly case. Which is a district court case. I'd like to just take the opportunity to remind Mr. Goldberg of this other case that she pushed me hard. That wasn't an alleged opinion on this issue. So I want to get that out. On the cross examination, I'd like to put before there's a cross examination, this one too, say one of the things Mr. Goldberg has replied with. I don't think he's an inadequate instruction. That's pretty good. On the jury's terms, I think there's a very simple answer. It's claimed every review. It was not claimed from the attention of the district court during the trial. No complaints were raised about those instructions. So this court, for the vote of space-depart, that supposedly a voting of the instruction, and that has to be clear and obvious. The district court, without getting any complaint from either side, would have to want its own, realized that it was a carousel
. We're not bound to. But Mr. Goldberg has complained to his reply, that we only cited one case for this proposition. And they have friendly case. Which is a district court case. I'd like to just take the opportunity to remind Mr. Goldberg of this other case that she pushed me hard. That wasn't an alleged opinion on this issue. So I want to get that out. On the cross examination, I'd like to put before there's a cross examination, this one too, say one of the things Mr. Goldberg has replied with. I don't think he's an inadequate instruction. That's pretty good. On the jury's terms, I think there's a very simple answer. It's claimed every review. It was not claimed from the attention of the district court during the trial. No complaints were raised about those instructions. So this court, for the vote of space-depart, that supposedly a voting of the instruction, and that has to be clear and obvious. The district court, without getting any complaint from either side, would have to want its own, realized that it was a carousel. So clear and obvious. Despite using the monitoring instructions, probably it was by this court. You're not binding. You're not binding. But I think we suggest that there's instructions that has to arise. I don't think so. I'd be disagree with Matthews' characterization at the instructions. We believe that the instructions are accurate as far as the right-wing end of that. They were prepared by a really fine group of judges. I remember when I was working on them. The part with part of that group, so. There needs to be some complicated issues as well. So on the right-wing, we know we have to have an error. It has to be clear and obvious. You would have to say to Judge Caputo that this was something you were not used to. You should have picked this up on your own. But not having had any complaints from any of the parties and the fact that you used exactly the right-wing instructions by all these people. We believe on the jury instruction issue, but if not, it is error. If certainly it was not clear and obvious that it is a court point, you never would have ruled
. So clear and obvious. Despite using the monitoring instructions, probably it was by this court. You're not binding. You're not binding. But I think we suggest that there's instructions that has to arise. I don't think so. I'd be disagree with Matthews' characterization at the instructions. We believe that the instructions are accurate as far as the right-wing end of that. They were prepared by a really fine group of judges. I remember when I was working on them. The part with part of that group, so. There needs to be some complicated issues as well. So on the right-wing, we know we have to have an error. It has to be clear and obvious. You would have to say to Judge Caputo that this was something you were not used to. You should have picked this up on your own. But not having had any complaints from any of the parties and the fact that you used exactly the right-wing instructions by all these people. We believe on the jury instruction issue, but if not, it is error. If certainly it was not clear and obvious that it is a court point, you never would have ruled. So that's my answer on the jury instructions. Mr. Corbero and his musical partners are privately made escape in bad-body traffic. So on page two he said that a public official who agrees to receive payments intended to be influenced in his official actions has not agreed to provide a revivation of 66 and 66 unless he also agrees to do so corrupted. We disagree with that. The corrupt part of the man that moves the statute closely with 66 and 66 is written in the disjump of the corrupt portion in this way applies to the corrupt solicitation and demand of cash in exchange for his official action. The dendos ought to say that the statute can be satisfied with or by accepting or receiving cash in exchange for official action with the intent of the influence. They are too separate. Men's ways in that statute are too different ways to violate the statute. So the statute doesn't fail even if the corrupt language is not in it. The statute is written in the disjump of which is the sub-over the sub-essence of the gloss of silver in his bleep. So he was assuming that it wasn't there and it had to be there. It wouldn't make the cap there. To what is it that it's most basic it's received cash in exchange for official action. What it ought to be influenced for is not the only official. With the intent element on a second cap it's going to be intent of the influence. That's the intent. Not the corrupt intent, the corrupt. Court deals with to corrupt the solicitation of the man that cashed in exchange for official action
. So that's my answer on the jury instructions. Mr. Corbero and his musical partners are privately made escape in bad-body traffic. So on page two he said that a public official who agrees to receive payments intended to be influenced in his official actions has not agreed to provide a revivation of 66 and 66 unless he also agrees to do so corrupted. We disagree with that. The corrupt part of the man that moves the statute closely with 66 and 66 is written in the disjump of the corrupt portion in this way applies to the corrupt solicitation and demand of cash in exchange for his official action. The dendos ought to say that the statute can be satisfied with or by accepting or receiving cash in exchange for official action with the intent of the influence. They are too separate. Men's ways in that statute are too different ways to violate the statute. So the statute doesn't fail even if the corrupt language is not in it. The statute is written in the disjump of which is the sub-over the sub-essence of the gloss of silver in his bleep. So he was assuming that it wasn't there and it had to be there. It wouldn't make the cap there. To what is it that it's most basic it's received cash in exchange for official action. What it ought to be influenced for is not the only official. With the intent element on a second cap it's going to be intent of the influence. That's the intent. Not the corrupt intent, the corrupt. Court deals with to corrupt the solicitation of the man that cashed in exchange for official action. Or to receive or accept cash in exchange for official action with the intent of the influence. So it doesn't even look like it's the party statute. I just wanted to raise that as far as the human interest in the prostituting creation. Yes, and a little capital action. Yes, the rest of the truth is question of the Coriano and the Eastern Union was that government under the line that you said something. I was in prosecutor. You were right. I was there. Somebody gave you my insight. And you were saying questions. I did ask those questions. And as Judge Gowentay's brought forward earlier, things are invitation to ask those questions. Does Lens Council Mr. Costoppelso is a very well known my truck profile lawyer in the state. Made a very dramatic entry into the Sturraktic Salonation. The court will see it was a very immediate direct examination. They didn't discuss the charges. They called it unconventional. I dispute that
. Or to receive or accept cash in exchange for official action with the intent of the influence. So it doesn't even look like it's the party statute. I just wanted to raise that as far as the human interest in the prostituting creation. Yes, and a little capital action. Yes, the rest of the truth is question of the Coriano and the Eastern Union was that government under the line that you said something. I was in prosecutor. You were right. I was there. Somebody gave you my insight. And you were saying questions. I did ask those questions. And as Judge Gowentay's brought forward earlier, things are invitation to ask those questions. Does Lens Council Mr. Costoppelso is a very well known my truck profile lawyer in the state. Made a very dramatic entry into the Sturraktic Salonation. The court will see it was a very immediate direct examination. They didn't discuss the charges. They called it unconventional. I dispute that. I think it was a trial tactic. As Mr. Goldberg indicated, it was a tactic to make Mr. Cordero appear so forthcoming. He was willing to answer anything that the government put at him. Where the renouncement be appropriate. Because he had nothing to hide. This was a trial strategy. He passed on it. Because I think I submit that the government was entitled to take Mr. Costoppelso upon his offer. I'd ask him any of the questions about any witness, any piece of evidence and any allegation. It was a case of the news about it. It's exactly what it was. And we were entitled to take them upon it. Now Mr. Goldberg, I mean, if you disagree with that trial tactic, you may have done it differently. They have even tried to cancel. But the defendant can't have a book for it
. I think it was a trial tactic. As Mr. Goldberg indicated, it was a tactic to make Mr. Cordero appear so forthcoming. He was willing to answer anything that the government put at him. Where the renouncement be appropriate. Because he had nothing to hide. This was a trial strategy. He passed on it. Because I think I submit that the government was entitled to take Mr. Costoppelso upon his offer. I'd ask him any of the questions about any witness, any piece of evidence and any allegation. It was a case of the news about it. It's exactly what it was. And we were entitled to take them upon it. Now Mr. Goldberg, I mean, if you disagree with that trial tactic, you may have done it differently. They have even tried to cancel. But the defendant can't have a book for it. If he can't have his cake in the evening, he can't try it. And the police is one of the jury in one way. And it has a valid counsel complaint about the violation of the rule when the tactic backfire. But there's another reason why the other half's defrosted damages appropriate. Underhats, the court gave one example. An honest of those two examples. When he's that this kind of question can be appropriate. The defendant opens the door. You can ask the defendant to do it with the slide. It's generally in front of other certain situations where it becomes appropriate. The example he really has was, for instance, that the defendant on direct examination since the defendant's slide can follow across any corner of that. Now, in this case, there was no direct examination because Mr. Kistoppus, you know, a transgender, a new question and one of the reasons that he couldn't do it, he would be able to do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it. Yes. Because we're going to get into this online class examination when we started. We asked Mr. Colbert a very broad question and on the journey of his page 5557, and this is the question. And this is time to be asking him any question about any witness about whether or not that would be his lies. The question was, and during your instruction, for years of your instruction, you must be valuable $400,000 in the cash
. If he can't have his cake in the evening, he can't try it. And the police is one of the jury in one way. And it has a valid counsel complaint about the violation of the rule when the tactic backfire. But there's another reason why the other half's defrosted damages appropriate. Underhats, the court gave one example. An honest of those two examples. When he's that this kind of question can be appropriate. The defendant opens the door. You can ask the defendant to do it with the slide. It's generally in front of other certain situations where it becomes appropriate. The example he really has was, for instance, that the defendant on direct examination since the defendant's slide can follow across any corner of that. Now, in this case, there was no direct examination because Mr. Kistoppus, you know, a transgender, a new question and one of the reasons that he couldn't do it, he would be able to do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it. Yes. Because we're going to get into this online class examination when we started. We asked Mr. Colbert a very broad question and on the journey of his page 5557, and this is the question. And this is time to be asking him any question about any witness about whether or not that would be his lies. The question was, and during your instruction, for years of your instruction, you must be valuable $400,000 in the cash. Well, let's take your cash currency. You must be valuable $400,000 in cash. By shaking down various businessmen who were trying to do business with lack of one account. This is his answer. From what he says, from what he falls to you, you know, thousands of different things they did that you had on the day that I knew, to come up here and tell the story that you want to explore, not to truth, to tell the story, tell the story, not a personal isolated comment. That is the drum beat from the open statements on the side of your mouth, having alleged that every witness that the government called for either a wire or threatened or testified falsely because of the new unit or whatever. Mr. Corguero, all of you asked him any questions about whether or not this lie opened the door when he said he would have any of the stores. So then, I simply think that the government wasn't hired on the house. You can ask him, are you saying this would be the slide? Did they have a store? Did this would be the slide? I simply opened the door and I had a few other times. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The argument that the first clause of Section 666A1B is not an argument that he would agree with. So this is just a quick reaction that I haven't done to any research. It is wrong or hadically and it was not. So, instead, no case nor authority for that meeting of Section 66. Corruptly, is the next raya for that statute and all the sub-sessions, all the sub-closeless of that sub-session of the statute. And it's out of the collection of the colleague, Ms
. Well, let's take your cash currency. You must be valuable $400,000 in cash. By shaking down various businessmen who were trying to do business with lack of one account. This is his answer. From what he says, from what he falls to you, you know, thousands of different things they did that you had on the day that I knew, to come up here and tell the story that you want to explore, not to truth, to tell the story, tell the story, not a personal isolated comment. That is the drum beat from the open statements on the side of your mouth, having alleged that every witness that the government called for either a wire or threatened or testified falsely because of the new unit or whatever. Mr. Corguero, all of you asked him any questions about whether or not this lie opened the door when he said he would have any of the stores. So then, I simply think that the government wasn't hired on the house. You can ask him, are you saying this would be the slide? Did they have a store? Did this would be the slide? I simply opened the door and I had a few other times. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The argument that the first clause of Section 666A1B is not an argument that he would agree with. So this is just a quick reaction that I haven't done to any research. It is wrong or hadically and it was not. So, instead, no case nor authority for that meeting of Section 66. Corruptly, is the next raya for that statute and all the sub-sessions, all the sub-closeless of that sub-session of the statute. And it's out of the collection of the colleague, Ms. Matthewsson's in line, but there was a Supreme Court case possibly for us to grow up within the last couple of years, about how far a new raya had here traveled, so it hadically down a set of clauses. The Supreme Court talked about the rules of grammar and how to read a statute of that kind. I think that would be a few points to pretty much so that. No, what does it not mean as to how? To conclude that corruptly, a lot of the use at the beginning of this sub-section modifies all of the ways of violating the statute within sub-section, including the line of the sheet. The Supreme Court has a corruptly, top-of-the-mess raya for the charged events, because reading the statute, corruptly, corruptly doesn't attach to the relevant clause. But that is correct. I believe that is the only time that we would find no case in our sub-session. So, what do you have? I think we can put a cross-regulation for the moment. You saw that. No, given it to you. I just want to say that Harris, when he talks about the open door, talks about the defendant opening the door, com to rent. Mr. Grandin wants to do, he's pushed that door open and say, as the prosecutor, if he any prosecutor, if any prosecutor can get the defendant on cross-regulation to suggest a mismod or use the word line, which Mr. Grandin ought to not do, by asking some question, other than, did the witness lie? Then, the defendant has opened that door to further improper questions on cross. The prosecutor gets to open his own door to his own improper questions. That, coupled with the last thing that happens, it is not a reasonable reading, I would not suggest that. I hope Toro expressed the saying that the defendant did not want ever a tactical purpose in doing this undimensional to rent. Certainly did not waive the rules of prosecutor's office conduct or evidence, involving improper cross-regulation. Today, I cannot have been cross-examined through a deal with the wire-tap evidence that had been suppressed or racial grounds or because he had said all the absurd questions he wanted to ask