either number of depending on the particular count we're dealing with their number of different elements but for all of the counts it matters whether he thought he was lying and who testified about what the rent was made very clear when the government put on government officials to testify about what about your thought he was allowed to do or not know about whether amenities were permitted and they ended and they they talked about what particular documents said so the documents actually were primarily introduced through the defense attorney but the only government witness who testified about what the rank actually was was the landlord who in fact made very clear the combined monthly rent that everybody understood was forty four hundred dollars a month also that would be more believable if that amount of rent was actually paid to the landlord the difficulty is that amount of rent was not paid to the land line well it was paid to lend her how it was paid by the understanding that the rent was forty four hundred dollars but that as part of that forty four hundred dollars the land would land would provide four hundred fifty five dollars a month worth of amenities and joy he didn't provide the amenities the tenant went out and purchased the amenities directly which is the theory unusual when you agree for a tenant to go out and purchase the amenities and the landlord never get the money for those i don't know how unusual it may or may not roger the fact is this was the agreement that all of the parties reached i mean i can tell you that just this month when i went to pay my rent on line my the rent that was listed for me to pay was less than what my normal rent was because my landlord had credited my account with various things so i ended up paying less this mom then my typical monthly rent would was this was this the usual lease that mr kid had that he had previously did he have this lease previously arrangement with the landlord previously to deduct an amount for a minute to know the amenities came up when this school lardo moved into the house and the parties agreed that she would have a an additional lease also for twenty two hundred dollars and she had a housing allowance as well that's correct yes they were both and they were both staff sergeants right there forces both entitled to housing allowances and the understanding was when she moved in with mr kid that each of them would would pay twenty two hundred dollars a month and there was a combined leasing wrap part seems exceedingly odd but that is not what the thrust of the me charges on him the fact that you could the red because somebody else will get it but that's not what the charges are but that's not what the charges are right that the fact is that's what was agreed to that's what the housing office had approved so there was no question that it was permissible to have a combined ranch for forty four hundred dollars a month what about the i guess the most damning fact it seems to me from you know in terms of your clients positions just the failure to disclose the side agreement and i guess why couldn't a jury infer from that fact that you know what  actually did know that these amenities were either not things that you could get approved through this program or even if there was a possibility that they could that you know would be very difficult to and so he just did that and he said he therefore he knew what he was doing was wrong well i guess  what was he hiding if in fact anything was being hidden he was hiding just trying to play devil's advocate right he was hiding the fact that yes the program in theory allowed you to have this arrangement where the landlord would include certain amenities in the rent and those in the government would not unless pay the full forty four hundred let's say but there were some restrictions on what kinds of amenities this is not the other and so had he disclosed to the government that this is the arrangement i've got maybe it would have all been good but why couldn't a jury infer that he knew there was a reason why he was hiding this from the government and not you know i'm saying so help me with that well you know i think the fact if someone is attempting to defraud the government they typically don't up and enter into a binding written contract and that's what we have here we have a binding written contract between three parties gallardo kid and the landlord but if it was part of the lease agreement by listening it include it with the leas exhibit thirteen is what we're talking about here is that's the contract regarding the amenities if you look at the bottom right hand corner of the page it has in hand written language attach zeros or a three page eleven of eleven with the initials of o which if you then look at the the rental agreement from his gordo which is exhibit fourteen it matches right up that this in fact was page eleven of eleven of the  based on the testimony from the government officials that it was not provided well i don't know about how to trot it certainly not provide it it certainly was not in the file that's absolutely true and and it could raise questions why i suppose a curious question is but again if the intent here was to deceive the government then why was there a contract if this was a conspiracy between all of the parties to defraud the government of all of this money actually it's not a whole lot of money that i don't have to answer that question we have to determine whether or not there is substantial evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict and it could be argued that the fact that this side agreement was not included with the document supports a reasonable inference from the jury that it was consistent with an attempt to deceive the government well your hon there was anything he thought there was anything to seem to government about that is if he if there the government as i understand it is not maintaining that it doesn't actually matter whether or not this was allowed or not and he i mean there was some discussion in the papers where he suggested that he thought at least for a while that it was valid and later decided maybe it isn't that's right well after he was being threatened with prosecution he's like all right well they're coming after me maybe i was doing something wrong that's certainly true  but i don't think that's an admission that he was doing anything wrong again he still thought he was doing everything right in terms of his amenities and we have the evidence at trial see the government's witnesses testified yes these amenities could have been approved about utilities as opposed to the rants the fact is that this report may findings when she ruled on the world when i motion that said very clearly that it may be allowable for  to pay for intern extra maintenance it may be that there were no government or military regulations introduced adjusting that housekeeping along services or cable or interphone were not allowed will and that such services likely are allowable  credibility determinations and the end then make a verdict let me ask you about the term a nation of the side agreement at what point in the in the factual scenario was the side agreement terminated i believe negotiate additional terms to release whereby each would pay twenty two hundred twenty seven dollars less than twenty two hundred al shehri a month so that the us air force would unknowingly pay for their housekeeping cable television wanker bills expenses that would not be reimburs under military regulations the government's whole premise here whole understandable basis for this prosecution was that these amenities were not allowable under military regulations but the government introduced no military regulations the the court standard here is that the evidence must be evaluated in the light most favorable to the government and all legitimate inferences must be drawn in favor of the prosecution and  it an element of that crime that in fact it was forbidden to do what he did it because it wasn't the money belong to the government now is there any matter the government's position and his brief was it doesn't really matter whether he was allowed to do this or not that's correct your honor i'm going to not do that or if it there isn't an element of the crime is that he intend to take from the government something that belonged to the government i e money that he wasn't entitled him now but he wasn't entitle to it because he was lying about the amount he was representing the government that the rent was forty four hundred but he was only paying thirty nine forty five as an explanation for that but and he thinks that what he he and he says that  declaration it prohibits it contains language to the effect that i will not negotiate for additional amenities and so forth so no i  ok because as i stated in my brief mr kid was obviously intending to get amenities that he was not entitled to or that he pocket the difference without letting the without letting the government know of what the true rent was and the jury apparently agreed that the it was there any motion may to satisfy the jury verdict yes question that's correct and if he thought what he was doing was perfectly valid then why does the fact that he didn't tell it to the government  paper trail that he would provide these amendments but he didn't want to pay for them so he said i would pay for them and in fact i even gave him back some money when i paid less but he didn't want it and then he says moreover that  there's no evidence that he pocketed them that he didn't spend the money and when he said it was suspended for is there any evidence in the record about that well that of course there what that was argued before the that matter i agree that it would have been a yes i gree that it would have been a stronger case had that been delved into your honor but i don't think it's fatal to the case so support the tell me what the lions what's the  presenting a claim to the united states government that you're paying forty four hundred dollars a month in rent when the landlord is only getting thirty nine hundred forty five dollars now the question was raised before  regulations that prohibits a new arrangement where the a part of the rent kid's given to you to pay for things the landlord's acquited were to pay for is right that is the government ever demonstrated that there's something wrong with that not not in the record you i do wonder why if you were not the lawyer on this case to begin with why you made such a big fuss about your having to argue it if you don't know the record i apologize for not being better prepared your honor tried the case is no longer with the office and i agreed to step in and help while my office i do apologize for not being better prepared agreement that states that the rent is forty four hundred dollars a month when it's not when the landlord is only getting thirty nine hundred forty five there and the failure to disclose is powerful evidence of mr kids intent to deceive the government and to steal that money if you know that the question was asked before mr libby suggests this was an agreement between all the parties except for one party the u s government was not aware of this agreement mr libby also positive the question about all of this was a conspiracy why did they lay this paper trail i would ask why didn't they disclose that agreement if this was not a conspiracy if this was not if their intent was not to take money from the government why didn't they simply reduce health yes i think that there's more than enough evidence in the record to satisfy jackson's very rational ity test and i thank you but you do have to send the lease agreement to them that's correct and the lease agreements were sent and approved by the housing office now this separate contract regarding specifically the amenities apparently did not make it into the file is there some it's talking about utilities as opposed to amenities but it's asking the person to disclose if there's a box that you can check it says i separately pay for some utility to excluding telephone and some are included in the rent rental agreement with the landlord right so i guess i kind of infer from that that yeah this all might be fine there might not be anything wrong with your having the landlord agree to pay for these certain things but it seems like the government for whatever reason is interested in knowing about that kind of arrangement i  grant you this is about utilities we're talking about something different but why wouldn't why wouldn't a jury be able to infer that yeah he knew that that also would be of interest to the government well because i think because utilities and the rent are different and it was expensive testimony specifically about that hey there's three there's three parts to it and one of it has to do with the rents one has to do with utilities and i can't remember what the third one is but the utilities are completely separate every seat because you get a separate payment from the government for you correct i said yes every service member gets the exact amount of utility reimbursement regardless of how much that might actually be paying and in fact the testimony was people can use that money for anything they want that they can use to pay their student loans and to buy lunch and anything else utilities they just get a flat rent is different and rent changes it has to be based on the lease agreement and it's based on  position that you hold in the military whether you have dependents all of those can change how much you are authorized to get so until it's very different does that does that mean that if you check on this box you know for example that yeah my electricity and heat and air conditioning are all included in the rent  then get a reduced amount or do you not get your full rent no these for you till these are for rent so for utilities again i'm sorry i'm positing a situation where some of your utilities that you would otherwise be separately reimbursed for are actually included in the rent and so what happens you get you still get one hundred percent of rent and whatever your utility allowance you get whatever rents was approved by the housing office and you get the the flat utility payment that everybody in the service gets so those are completely separate do they reduce the amount of the rent that your miner say is no that's why they ask you this question who cares if you're some of the utilities are included in the rent but doesn't it again it depends on how one characterizes the term utilities i understand ones that are covered by the utility payments when charges of native they cannot be as i understand it included in paid for by the landlord as part of the rent well they can be in fact and there was discussion about this it's very common for homeowners association if you happen to be a condominium then homeowners association may cover utilities and so yes that's still all covered by your rent but that that is against separate apart from the utility reimbursement that you're entitled to and reimburse me in chile reimbursement even if you that are covered are being paid for by the land that's correct because everyone is entitled to utility payments i use the word reimbursement i know it's technically reimbursement because it has nothing to do with what you actually serious when they would have a problem with