United States versus New York, Pennsylvania. Yeah, proceed your own. Yes. Good morning, Honours. The police is the court. My name is David Caddy. I'm the attorney. I'll be after the accountant Rosalind Sylvain. I request three minutes for your review. You're on the first issue. I'd like to delve into anything. It's a much straightforward issue is Miss Sylvain's conviction under counting for harboring the course in Bill Jean that record on his matters. He reviewed it. Mr. Jean was in the country legally he entered into a legal binding contract for residency at the Sword and Fire Residence. The government then charged Miss Sylvain for harboring him at that place of residence, you know two essential elements for a harboring conviction is one that Miss Sylvain is actually provided the shelter which is refuted entirely by the lease. The second one is that the harboring unit's court concludes that she did provide shelter that in some way permitted him to remain in the country illegally. Do you have a weaker case if there was no lease? On the shelter issue if the lease was only Miss Sylvain's name? It's no lease. Well, yes, it's a rather entirely an earlier name that does hurt me on the harboring issue. However, it's second and so that the harboring issue is dependent on whether he had any document that say he could be. I should say not the harboring. He provided shelter element of that offense. It does, but it's not deadly in my case because the government's required for that they would substantially facilitate his remaining in the country illegally. Every age, every single age that he got the stance of the fact that they knew Mr
. Jean was living, aided them in the apprehension of him. So it can't be substantially facilitating his illegally remaining in the United States. It's actually aiding law enforcement in apprehending the government. The government seemed to make a fallback move to say, well, they came to the property and they heard a door closed and they heard a branch break and that the jury could then somehow infer that he was aiding door civil-gain remaining in the country. Is that the government's whole case on this? Is that one time in April of six with each person went for a visit? That is their entire case is that I think initially the homosexual was living there. Well, it's down to if they heard a branch break. I always disagree with what the standard for circumstantial evidence is, but I think this is so far beyond what could be considered a certain stature. It's a pure speculation. Nobody saw Mr. Jean. There was nothing whatsoever indicate he was there. Another point she made here on this is that in regard to miscellaneous evidence, she never even denied that he was there. And that is Agent Harrison spoke with her several times. And she never lies or says they think he wasn't with me or anything like that. So what are they? Let me press that point on that one. She knew that he was in the Virgin Islands illegal. Is there any dispute about that? Well, after Agent Harrison informed her that his BIA appeal was denied initially he's there in the agency. So he's there legally until his BIA decision is denied. That is after they signed into that lease and after he's... And that means he signs that lease when he's living there legally. Is there any dispute about the fact that she knew that he was there in her residence as an illegal ill-eal? I think the right group does state Agent Harrison informed her face-to-face that his BIA decision was overturned
. That was before the agents went to the house to pick him up. I think that was when they came to the home of Agent Harrison. Tells her that. That was the first time she knew that he... Jean was an illegal ill-eal? She may have known prior to that era. I'm not recalling that specific point she was told, but even if she does... Yeah, it's hypothetically. I just wanted to test it out. So hypothetically, I'd say that she had knowledge that he was. Would even if he were in their release, would that not be sufficient for harboring any... It would not be because she would not have been providing him shelter. He might have had a legal right to be in the United States, but as against Rosalind Sylvias and as against the landlord, he has a contractual legal right to be in that promise. It was a straight-of-your-argument as if he was on the lease to be there. That is one of the reasons. He could be there whether she was there or not. Absolutely. She has no right to kick him out
. There's nothing she can do illegal. She's not an agent in the government and the government can't make you do what is essentially their job. How about this notion of cont healing? I don't think there's anything to seal in here. She's never an agent. I've testified she... I've never seen evidence in sufficient. Shutting the door. I think the testimony was she more or less shut the door in her face. Her foot's tepsis. Someone running and branched breaking. But no one saw a door simple she... Exactly. And that is totally insufficient. I don't know. I don't know if any legal requirements, someone will leave the door open. These agents are not coming with an arrest warrant. They're not coming with a search warrant. I don't know if there's a log at any crime to be inferred from closing the door. Unless we know that he was in there at some point
. Exactly. And actually the government... What's evidence? You don't accelerate it. Absolutely. And the evidence in this case, doctor, is that they heard branches breaking outside. So even if she's closing the door, they're statement of these. He's outside running through the woods somewhere. So they can't approach what she's doing. I'm saying a very good job of concealing. Absolutely. She's telling the government where his name is on the lease. The government agents are also saying it's helping us to know where he is. Could you address anybody who has further questions on that aspect? Could you? Yes, go ahead. Yeah, I just have to say a subject. Could she not be charged with harvoring with Lanjie? John was with her in St. John and in her vehicle coming back towards St. John's. Well, there are not really the indictment specifically for harvoring him at the sorting fry home. Not for having him in the vehicle. I don't know if that would have been the case. I don't know if that could have been the case
. But I don't really testify that he's being in the car anyway, if it's still tated his remaining in the United States illegally. Okay, so the harvoring can relate solely to the residents not to the trip from St. John's. Absolutely, specifically to his upbringing at that residence. Could you address the validity of the arrest of minor fanings and the suppression hearing, the sole evidence that was offered for the government was Agent Harrison, who testified as to what others had done in response to the tip of the city. That is the sole evidence that I know we went over this earlier in the week, the relying on tip and hearsay is admissible. But I think as I cited in my brief that the court has permitted to then review evidence that came out on the trial and we're reviewing that suppression role. And what we find out is that the two things that the court relied on, one, was stating it was a border search, it was clearly not a border search. And secondly, that they made this arrest because the occupants of the vehicle were wet and somehow the agents couldn't infer from the fact that they were wet, that they just come off the boat from another country. Could you focus on the border search aspect of this? I guess that's a district court bound then. Could you address that? Absolutely, there is no border search in the situation and here is the reason. The government is admitted, it's agents all testified that this is a boat coming in from St. John to St. Thomas. That is an intra-ionist travel. And I think I cited the case, the United States versus Ford, where a plane had allegedly flown in the country from Jamaica and the police in Pennsylvania had waited a couple of airports on the plane landed. There needs to be some level, some evidence of the government to believe that this boat is coming internationally and that's completely void in this case. There is nothing, they actually, it's not even that, they actually have a solid group of they know it's coming from St. John because when the teacher calls, he says they are coming on the ferry from St. John to St. Thomas, the police don't ask for the boats to go in. The agent is going to ask for the boat, they know exactly where it's going. It's going to where the same time with St
. John ferry always goes and they drive right to that point. So I think the rest of the three miles in four miles is a part of it. Yes, it's about three miles. And the government, the agents all admit it, I think the attorney Potter and his argument during the suppression hearing says the fact that this boat was coming from St. John. So the government freely admits that this boat was not traveling internationally and certainly not a work search. And there's not one centilla evidence to indicate that whatsoever. What evidence is there that supports the anonymous tip in itself does not. And at the suppression, that's really all that was tested. That's all. But a trial, was there any testimony that supported the probable cause for the arrest because it's conceded that the arrest was not being challenged. Or excuse me, the arrest is being challenged. Absolutely, it's twofold, it's one. And the agents complete a stop of this vehicle. Not when they see how many things are happening as soon as they stop that boat. They stop ever coming off that starts a stop when they go around and they search the boat. They have absolutely no reason to arrest or be so bad. They arrest her before they even. They see it blue, they see two people in the back seat of that vehicle. They see Missal Bell. And they know her and she knows them. She's worked with them. And she knows their immigration deportation agents
. She doesn't flee. She doesn't do anything. She actually engages the officer and keeps them so the arrest are basically the assumption. If this is the substance of the anonymous tip, and this is one, the officer's hurt anonymously. And they go to the site and they see all of these things. In other words, they cooperate with the information provided in the anonymous tip. Is it that sufficient to allow them to investigate further? There's two points I make in first that they don't make the stop based of it. They stop the boat before they see the car. There's no corroboration when this stop starts. The boat is stopped in the agent and it's not the problem. I think it is around. I think that is a motor vehicle stop in this situation. They stop. They stop in the agent. Testifies he stops everybody on that boat. He actually doesn't ask any of them. Like, am anyone other than her own stop? That's correct. That is her stop. Exactly. In other words, they just say, wait a minute. Nobody get off. We're going to check this inside the boat for them. Absolutely
. Why is that? Because they're making a motor vehicle stop based on nothing. All they have is the anonymous tip. They don't have a visual confirmation that the car is on the ferry. But they know that the SUV of Blue Assusor is on that boat. I think they're speculating based on the anonymous tip that it is. That's why they stop. They go on there and check. Let me press you further. But there's only one way to find the out, which is to stop the boat and go inside and look. The other way is to wait till the cars get off the ferry because they were going to do it. They might have only seen Rose and Salvas. We don't know if they would have seen other people or Mr. Jean and the other. What if it's an airplane and the hypothetical speed? It's coming from a handy and constant. The anonymous tip is an illegal alien and some dangerous fugitive. He's on that plane to go to land and say, that's the information. Can you stop not letting everybody walk and they go on the investigate? That poses a different question. I don't think so. I think they eat. Well, this is never because there's no motor vehicle on that plane. And they're actually conducting a motor vehicle stop even though it happened on the boat. That shouldn't matter. It could be the person on the plane
. This is similar to the motor vehicle. I think there is a case of that. I think there is a case of that. I think there is a case of that. It was with this passenger and they come on the bus and stop the entire bus. I'm not sure. But the whole thing is a case. I'm just curious when you can go further based on information as you verify the information on the way. Is it good to see the detergents still hiding? I think we are getting into that area of a tarot stop here. My complaint is that they make this stop when I cite the Florida verses J out. They're making this based on nothing. There's nothing verifiable when they stop this vehicle. They don't even know where the vehicle is. When does the arrest come? Let's get beyond the stop. It seems to me the arrest is based upon little other than the tip itself. Or is there testimony and I guess your colleague can enter this as well? Is there anything that gives more substance to the proper cause of arrest than the tip itself? It cannot be. It's a times of the message. The evidence in the case, there's nothing to support the arrest whatsoever. When they get to the vehicle, if he had seen Dorsenville Jean in the car, then I think the government has a good case. But he's not in that vehicle. All they have is two individuals sitting in the back seat who are contrary to what Agent Harrison is going to testify. These people are sitting in dry clothes. There's nothing to indicate in any way that they are illegally in this country or at the front
. In fact, wasn't the tip that the two of them, the Sothea and Dorsenville Jean were doing this so that in terms of cooperation, we don't have Dorsenville Jean. We absolutely lose Dorsenville Jean and there's agents have no nothing to conclude that these two other individuals in the car have you say there are only two other individuals in the car? I do have Dorsenville Jean. None of that is valid. None of what the law gives you. Two more minutes. This is a difficult case. Thank you. If none of the observations of the officers are valid, what about John, the person that they were looking for, the person that they were looking for, the alien? Yes. And he went in the information the officer's got was that he is in the car with subalias on the boat going to St. John's. So let's say all of their observations were in problem. Then they see John floating in the water. Well, I believe that she's arrested before they even see John in the water. And I think we're putting the car for Dorsen. They certainly did not. John is not in that vehicle, so there's nothing to confirm. A corroborate with this anonymous internship. So I don't think that's the story. I don't know if him floating in the water would have been sufficient to arrest her. I know later on they find this pants or something in the car. Maybe at that point you're getting into something out of they can verify. That's why he made a new order. Yes. Does it want to take a swim? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know
. Does it want to take a swim? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. You don't know? Okay. Okay. Good morning everybody. May I thank you for your spirit, General,��, people and policemen. Thank you all. That is great. I call it words and that was the issue of Harvard. The evidence in this case to support Harvard that the Jewry Fund was that miscellaneous actually shielded defendant Jean, when the agent had his encounter to the resident and soldier machine. We don't know that Jean was in the residence. How is there no evidence that he was there? How can the case be named that she shielded him? Well the testimony was that when the agent had his encounter to drive him to the door, he corroded the bushes and grew. He asked the question, was that serious? Was that Jean, excuse me, and her response was, I don't know. He said, I don't know. No. Where is that in the, I'm looking at what I told was the proper place to 27. And then you may have heard footsteps, ideas, and worship, but is it true, sir, that I did not see for some good Jean running? No, no, no further questions. I would find it exactly. And if you could do that while Mr. Cady and Mrs. were bottled and then we could throw that in the very end, I'll see her tongue to it. Well Mr. Carter, what if she did go? Mr. Cady seems to say he had a right to be there because he was on the lease
. I don't know. You don't know? Okay. Okay. Good morning everybody. May I thank you for your spirit, General,��, people and policemen. Thank you all. That is great. I call it words and that was the issue of Harvard. The evidence in this case to support Harvard that the Jewry Fund was that miscellaneous actually shielded defendant Jean, when the agent had his encounter to the resident and soldier machine. We don't know that Jean was in the residence. How is there no evidence that he was there? How can the case be named that she shielded him? Well the testimony was that when the agent had his encounter to drive him to the door, he corroded the bushes and grew. He asked the question, was that serious? Was that Jean, excuse me, and her response was, I don't know. He said, I don't know. No. Where is that in the, I'm looking at what I told was the proper place to 27. And then you may have heard footsteps, ideas, and worship, but is it true, sir, that I did not see for some good Jean running? No, no, no further questions. I would find it exactly. And if you could do that while Mr. Cady and Mrs. were bottled and then we could throw that in the very end, I'll see her tongue to it. Well Mr. Carter, what if she did go? Mr. Cady seems to say he had a right to be there because he was on the lease. Well the issue of whether that he was on the lease, I don't think that was the main argument for this case. Even if he was on the lease. Well then he says it's not hard right because he had a right to be there. Otherwise, he was not concealing him. But if I look at Farley's, he had a right to be there because he was a tenant. Technically, even if his name was on the lease, his name being on the lease does not permit her to have agents, took to light the agents in effect, ask who would have had, he was the one who was just running to the house, I'm going to the boss. By how doing that, she permitted Jean to get away, she permitted Jean to conceal himself even inside the residence or in the boss' house. Did she actually have her responsibility to keep him from getting away? I'm going to ask him. You said she let him get away and I asked does she have her responsibility physically to keep him from getting away? Was he hasn't his responsibility not to be involved in letting him get away? And this was all involvement in letting him get away? Well what evidence do we have that it was him, that he was anywhere near here? Is there any evidence other than her shutting the door? And you can shut the door in an agent's face for a lot of reasons. You just don't want me to bother or you have something on the stove or whatever. But what basis do we have for the jury to use to infer that he was present and she was in fact conceal him? The jury know that Jean was living in that house. The jury know that Jean was illegal living. The jury know that Harrison went to the house in search of Jean. The jury know that there was bushes being broken and someone was running. He let me know also if they are part of it. What we know? I don't think it's quite that specific. It's a British channel. But Matihana, the jury also called me simply a testify. And she put her credibility at the line. And obviously the jury did not believe when she said that that was not Jean who was either running dinner all the time. Did it not believe her? And based on that, the reason of the jury. I think the standard is, if any reason of the jury could believe that that was in fact Jean who she was attempting to sheela to protect, then there was sufficient evidence and this was the net interview in the jury of decision. What if she said nothing? What if the jury of the police or the jury agent said that she and she said I'm not honking? That may have been a different case altogether
. Well the issue of whether that he was on the lease, I don't think that was the main argument for this case. Even if he was on the lease. Well then he says it's not hard right because he had a right to be there. Otherwise, he was not concealing him. But if I look at Farley's, he had a right to be there because he was a tenant. Technically, even if his name was on the lease, his name being on the lease does not permit her to have agents, took to light the agents in effect, ask who would have had, he was the one who was just running to the house, I'm going to the boss. By how doing that, she permitted Jean to get away, she permitted Jean to conceal himself even inside the residence or in the boss' house. Did she actually have her responsibility to keep him from getting away? I'm going to ask him. You said she let him get away and I asked does she have her responsibility physically to keep him from getting away? Was he hasn't his responsibility not to be involved in letting him get away? And this was all involvement in letting him get away? Well what evidence do we have that it was him, that he was anywhere near here? Is there any evidence other than her shutting the door? And you can shut the door in an agent's face for a lot of reasons. You just don't want me to bother or you have something on the stove or whatever. But what basis do we have for the jury to use to infer that he was present and she was in fact conceal him? The jury know that Jean was living in that house. The jury know that Jean was illegal living. The jury know that Harrison went to the house in search of Jean. The jury know that there was bushes being broken and someone was running. He let me know also if they are part of it. What we know? I don't think it's quite that specific. It's a British channel. But Matihana, the jury also called me simply a testify. And she put her credibility at the line. And obviously the jury did not believe when she said that that was not Jean who was either running dinner all the time. Did it not believe her? And based on that, the reason of the jury. I think the standard is, if any reason of the jury could believe that that was in fact Jean who she was attempting to sheela to protect, then there was sufficient evidence and this was the net interview in the jury of decision. What if she said nothing? What if the jury of the police or the jury agent said that she and she said I'm not honking? That may have been a different case altogether. But when she interviewed, when she made a specific denial that that was not him. And then when she testified, I put her credibility at the line and considered the story that she gave in her general testimony at trial. The jury had more than sufficient base. It's too infirm, number one, that she was lying, finding that she lied in her entire testimony that she gave her a trial and based on that. There's a reason of the innocence could be made by that jury that yes, that was Jean and yes, she was attempting to shield him from Major Allison. I can't listen. What's starting to happen is cases how open this was. I, you know, we talked about concealment but he was on the lease. The government obviously had the lease because they turned it over and discovered everyone knew where it was. So they were all basing this on whether Bush's cracking was Jean or not. I mean, he was on the lease but every time that the agents went in to find them, they never found them. Let me ask you. What about the landlord? New than he was in the legal alley. He painted his rat and john in the lab and they have a lease agreement. She charged those as well as part of the work. If she made attempts to shield him. If the agents came and said, you know landlord, Jean is from the legal alley. He should have been on the lease and then somehow the agent goes to the apartment and the landlord says something and does something to defend the agents from finding him. That's exactly what happened in this case with the police. It seems that there's some conflicting facts. I thought your brief also said there was a thought he was still in the house. And he had the else, your brief also said he was running out. If there were sure he was running out, why didn't he still happen? They heard Bush's cracking
. But when she interviewed, when she made a specific denial that that was not him. And then when she testified, I put her credibility at the line and considered the story that she gave in her general testimony at trial. The jury had more than sufficient base. It's too infirm, number one, that she was lying, finding that she lied in her entire testimony that she gave her a trial and based on that. There's a reason of the innocence could be made by that jury that yes, that was Jean and yes, she was attempting to shield him from Major Allison. I can't listen. What's starting to happen is cases how open this was. I, you know, we talked about concealment but he was on the lease. The government obviously had the lease because they turned it over and discovered everyone knew where it was. So they were all basing this on whether Bush's cracking was Jean or not. I mean, he was on the lease but every time that the agents went in to find them, they never found them. Let me ask you. What about the landlord? New than he was in the legal alley. He painted his rat and john in the lab and they have a lease agreement. She charged those as well as part of the work. If she made attempts to shield him. If the agents came and said, you know landlord, Jean is from the legal alley. He should have been on the lease and then somehow the agent goes to the apartment and the landlord says something and does something to defend the agents from finding him. That's exactly what happened in this case with the police. It seems that there's some conflicting facts. I thought your brief also said there was a thought he was still in the house. And he had the else, your brief also said he was running out. If there were sure he was running out, why didn't he still happen? They heard Bush's cracking. It's a hard case to understand. Well, they heard Bush's cracking and they heard him do it. To be it was not clear from the trial whether Jean was running out of the apartment or he was outside and running into the apartment. But it doesn't matter whether he was running out or ending the issue with whether that Sylvia said that did something to defend Harrison from further pursuing Jean. And the evidence in this case I think strongly supports that fact. Particularly given the overall general testimony of Sylvia's and the Julie getting to listen to her case and to see her and get into the judge's part of the bill. When you address the validity of the stock and the arrest on the orange place? Yes. Is this for research? I would argue arguably it's not for more research. But it was a search incident while I was with her. When the agents had reason to believe from the tips that Jean, Sylvia's were in St. John, bringing illegal aliens back from St. John to St. Thomas. But we have held the United States versus Ripper's, and I know because I was reversed by the third survey by Judge Becker in that case, that an anonymous tip that someone is somewhere doing something illegal is not for a new basis for an arrest. This was more than anonymous tip count. We call that Jean was a fugitive. Jean was wanted by I&M somebody by ICE. Somebody called and said, I know why Jean is fugitive means that you're looking for him. He's in St. John. For all we know, that person just had it in for Jean. And wanted Jean to get arrested. That was the problem in Roberson
. It's a hard case to understand. Well, they heard Bush's cracking and they heard him do it. To be it was not clear from the trial whether Jean was running out of the apartment or he was outside and running into the apartment. But it doesn't matter whether he was running out or ending the issue with whether that Sylvia said that did something to defend Harrison from further pursuing Jean. And the evidence in this case I think strongly supports that fact. Particularly given the overall general testimony of Sylvia's and the Julie getting to listen to her case and to see her and get into the judge's part of the bill. When you address the validity of the stock and the arrest on the orange place? Yes. Is this for research? I would argue arguably it's not for more research. But it was a search incident while I was with her. When the agents had reason to believe from the tips that Jean, Sylvia's were in St. John, bringing illegal aliens back from St. John to St. Thomas. But we have held the United States versus Ripper's, and I know because I was reversed by the third survey by Judge Becker in that case, that an anonymous tip that someone is somewhere doing something illegal is not for a new basis for an arrest. This was more than anonymous tip count. We call that Jean was a fugitive. Jean was wanted by I&M somebody by ICE. Somebody called and said, I know why Jean is fugitive means that you're looking for him. He's in St. John. For all we know, that person just had it in for Jean. And wanted Jean to get arrested. That was the problem in Roberson. You don't know unless there's something to bolster the reliability of this tip. And we don't know anything about this tipster. Well, the testimony I've tried was that two weeks prior that this same person had a gang call of the agents in St. John. The gene was again in St. John. He was again moving the legal unions. They were not able to confirm that at the time. And two weeks later, they come to the next day of another call. I don't know. I don't know how that bolsters of reliability. Well, this time they give the description of the vehicle. They say what kind of vehicle is leaving St. John. They say who was in the vehicle with him? But when they are able to see and the person who gene is not in the car, doesn't that impose as to whether the tip was in the car liable? Well, when they approach the vehicle, they act stillly as well. But where is Jean? And she says, oh, he stayed back in St. John. He got off the car and said, Johnny stayed in St. John. The agent sees a pair of pants in the front seat. And then the agent says that Jean jumped over the ball and is now swimming, sweating water in the ocean. Because more than sufficient basis for the arrest of the individual and to the source that happened subsequently out of it. And every two other individuals in the back seat of the SUV
. You don't know unless there's something to bolster the reliability of this tip. And we don't know anything about this tipster. Well, the testimony I've tried was that two weeks prior that this same person had a gang call of the agents in St. John. The gene was again in St. John. He was again moving the legal unions. They were not able to confirm that at the time. And two weeks later, they come to the next day of another call. I don't know. I don't know how that bolsters of reliability. Well, this time they give the description of the vehicle. They say what kind of vehicle is leaving St. John. They say who was in the vehicle with him? But when they are able to see and the person who gene is not in the car, doesn't that impose as to whether the tip was in the car liable? Well, when they approach the vehicle, they act stillly as well. But where is Jean? And she says, oh, he stayed back in St. John. He got off the car and said, Johnny stayed in St. John. The agent sees a pair of pants in the front seat. And then the agent says that Jean jumped over the ball and is now swimming, sweating water in the ocean. Because more than sufficient basis for the arrest of the individual and to the source that happened subsequently out of it. And every two other individuals in the back seat of the SUV. There were two other individuals in the back seat of the SUV. And when they see invisibly to the agents or were they... There were plenty of agents in the back seat. The agents concluded what the agents took them up for them in the detention man went to retrieve Jean from the water, took the two supposedly illegal aliens back to the station, got them in target like interview them, they determined that they were in fact illegal aliens. When the statement was at that point, the police stand there and two days after that the individual was served. Yeah, and that was a search incident to arrest which seemed to be very strange to have a two day later searchant. It seemed that they would have to be an inventory searchant. Does there any evidence that the officers arriving on the scene, I guess that would have been, well the two officers arriving on the scene could tell from looking in the car that these people were more patient, skilled inhalations, they couldn't tell that at the scene for that. I just seen them. I just seen, I think the testimony from them, so the judges were that they appeared confused, disoriented, and basically totality of what was going on with Jean and being in the car, with the past being in the front seat, with the other agents saying that he was seeing Jean in the water, the conclusion was, and I think the reasonable conclusion that reasonable influence that these were the five illegal aliens, and it was born out when they were to illegal alienation taken to the INS and of course, and based on that, there's more than sufficient evidence in the record to support the search, I think that's not the case. On this border search issue, what do we do with that? I mean the judge, the judge applied along standard, how do we deal with that? Well I don't think that that was the primary reason for the judge's decision. I think the ultimate decision that the first primary decision that the judge came to was his view that this was an incidental apparatus, an incidental search. It might be the fallback position, and also it's a border search. It's in context, in context, this suppression heavy was held on the eve of trial, the morning for trial, the suppression motion was filed the morning of trial. So neither counsel or the judge had full benefits of receiving a motion from a calendar in this case. And I think both parties were, the government and the court was kind of taking up one that I hope they had. And we may or may not have been suited for certain issues, but the primary issue was whether or not the search was done incidental or not on the rest or as a result of an infantal search. I think there's more than sufficient evidence in the record to support that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning again
. There were two other individuals in the back seat of the SUV. And when they see invisibly to the agents or were they... There were plenty of agents in the back seat. The agents concluded what the agents took them up for them in the detention man went to retrieve Jean from the water, took the two supposedly illegal aliens back to the station, got them in target like interview them, they determined that they were in fact illegal aliens. When the statement was at that point, the police stand there and two days after that the individual was served. Yeah, and that was a search incident to arrest which seemed to be very strange to have a two day later searchant. It seemed that they would have to be an inventory searchant. Does there any evidence that the officers arriving on the scene, I guess that would have been, well the two officers arriving on the scene could tell from looking in the car that these people were more patient, skilled inhalations, they couldn't tell that at the scene for that. I just seen them. I just seen, I think the testimony from them, so the judges were that they appeared confused, disoriented, and basically totality of what was going on with Jean and being in the car, with the past being in the front seat, with the other agents saying that he was seeing Jean in the water, the conclusion was, and I think the reasonable conclusion that reasonable influence that these were the five illegal aliens, and it was born out when they were to illegal alienation taken to the INS and of course, and based on that, there's more than sufficient evidence in the record to support the search, I think that's not the case. On this border search issue, what do we do with that? I mean the judge, the judge applied along standard, how do we deal with that? Well I don't think that that was the primary reason for the judge's decision. I think the ultimate decision that the first primary decision that the judge came to was his view that this was an incidental apparatus, an incidental search. It might be the fallback position, and also it's a border search. It's in context, in context, this suppression heavy was held on the eve of trial, the morning for trial, the suppression motion was filed the morning of trial. So neither counsel or the judge had full benefits of receiving a motion from a calendar in this case. And I think both parties were, the government and the court was kind of taking up one that I hope they had. And we may or may not have been suited for certain issues, but the primary issue was whether or not the search was done incidental or not on the rest or as a result of an infantal search. I think there's more than sufficient evidence in the record to support that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning again. Addressing the government's point very quickly about this Suleyance closed an indoor and I agree. If he's inside the house, if he's outside the house, they're arguing both sides of the issue. Either she's interfering with their investigation because he's in the house and he's closing the door, but the whole basis for believing is theirs because they're granted breaking outside the house. I know there's two sides that are restorative. The government don't think they're arguing both sides of this at once, as to whether or not. Well, fairness, you did say that the possibility is that she came from the outside into the inside which is basically a system. And basically your question under this all speculation, we have to kind of make something up to kind of set try to make the government's case work and prove beyond the reasonable doubt requires much, much more than that. And here all we have is speculation that he was inside the house or outside the house in addition as to whether or not this Suleyance set or did anything to inhibit the government from apprehending Mr. Jean. Agent Harrison testified several times that the fact that he was there, he did him in apprehending Mr. Jean. And there was no testimony whatsoever that somehow her closing the door inhibited the government from apprehending Mr. Jean. There's this absolute no evidence that he's even in the house. As you're on the point of doubt, there's a million reasons something can close the door. The government never stated that in any way inhibited them from apprehending Jean and the government had to prove that because it has to prove that her action somehow. Substantially facilitated this thing that I stated to you with. The status of your patient may depend on how we view the term harboring. How would you define the harboring of worse than that? We know how to decide this case. I think it's quite clear and it's quite clear in the structure, because it's too providing shelter as the first thing. The harboring you have to provide shelter and that shelter has to substantially facilitate the illegal of aliens remaining in the United States on lawfully. That's the judge charged. That's exactly what he charged
. Addressing the government's point very quickly about this Suleyance closed an indoor and I agree. If he's inside the house, if he's outside the house, they're arguing both sides of the issue. Either she's interfering with their investigation because he's in the house and he's closing the door, but the whole basis for believing is theirs because they're granted breaking outside the house. I know there's two sides that are restorative. The government don't think they're arguing both sides of this at once, as to whether or not. Well, fairness, you did say that the possibility is that she came from the outside into the inside which is basically a system. And basically your question under this all speculation, we have to kind of make something up to kind of set try to make the government's case work and prove beyond the reasonable doubt requires much, much more than that. And here all we have is speculation that he was inside the house or outside the house in addition as to whether or not this Suleyance set or did anything to inhibit the government from apprehending Mr. Jean. Agent Harrison testified several times that the fact that he was there, he did him in apprehending Mr. Jean. And there was no testimony whatsoever that somehow her closing the door inhibited the government from apprehending Mr. Jean. There's this absolute no evidence that he's even in the house. As you're on the point of doubt, there's a million reasons something can close the door. The government never stated that in any way inhibited them from apprehending Jean and the government had to prove that because it has to prove that her action somehow. Substantially facilitated this thing that I stated to you with. The status of your patient may depend on how we view the term harboring. How would you define the harboring of worse than that? We know how to decide this case. I think it's quite clear and it's quite clear in the structure, because it's too providing shelter as the first thing. The harboring you have to provide shelter and that shelter has to substantially facilitate the illegal of aliens remaining in the United States on lawfully. That's the judge charged. That's exactly what he charged. The jury just flat out got this one wrong and there's nothing in the record to support its conclusion. I understand there are certainly some legal issues as to Elise and maybe the other jury that was something that went over the jury's head. He had ever right to be in that property as against Rosalind Slavea, as against the landlord. So we don't have to worry about whether the term can seal the disbonding of the definition of harboring or not? I don't think that the balance case either way, because as the agents all said, this is a very wide open living arrangement. Ms. Slavea is actually working with immigration. They know Mr. James in that house so they can't seal it. There's nothing clandestin about it living in the home. A couple of ones I didn't get to is the amazing Mr. Van Cole. The governments of all the witnesses put on the stand. The agent, the Mr. Supreme, everyone in the car, no one says that Mr. Van Cole is in the car. The agent actually specifies that he drives the car. He can see the entire interior of this vehicle including the trunk. And he's not in the vehicle. Mr. Van Cole appears like he'll be in a couple of days later and says, well I was in that car too. This is a situation where Mr. Van Cole, he wanted to get some benefit from the government. I have the agent, I understand
. I'm going to remain in that state. So I think that's exactly what happened here. I know that it's not this court's decision to make the veracity conclusions but the so far of actions. This is absolutely unsupported by anything in the evidence that he was in any way in that vehicle. That I don't think that specifically than that one they could even prove they did anything to harbor or to transport. I see my time as a thank you. Thank you. As the case was blow argued or taken under advisement