received the prudent lungs with no understanding of how the funds was to be used for that they would be required to reimburse the things of which james customarily took his cut now why that's why i'm asking suggest that if they dealt with somebody who wasn't siphoning off part of the proceeds but they couldn't have gotten more money certainly unnecessary they had abundant the government did other evidence that album a b made and was using the name roll on my card they had driver's license check off kind of information and it was extraordinarily harmless given all the evidence and all i can point to the court is that he made this defense basically of mere presence just painting around the conspiracy and in closing argument counsel tried to rebut the fact that the employment verification that suggested letters really weren't his so he laid out the defense and then we both the government made a very good argument that the problem with his argument that abduction that was in june of ninety six this phone call to indictment in march of two thousand want and that's the only evidence that the government relied on for the gumption finding there was another  suggestion that there was some other evidence but they didn't rely on that so the only evidence is just one phone call a scripted call mr brunow is now cooperated with the government you can tell from the client he participated in it for the most part temping us but you know fairly it's fair position is that he suggested lying to the f b i he had no knowledge prior to this that he is the subject of the investigation and then between the conversation and the prosecution i mean if you obstructed justice during that telephone call he did and so what's the significance of the delay i think there is a genuine attempt of justice you might have seen some more evidence of it over the next talking that when you read the truth when you actually read it or listen to the tape it's not really close to clear what he's trying to do he's just being informed hey i got heard from the f b i what should i do what you normally have to talk to them that's not a structural justice that ve but i think that you know that that that's intention is in the defendant's argument as well the government does not believe that they do i mean while the defendant argued in closing that he was merely present present the government's response to that and  the mortgage brokers were contractually bound to provide factually correct information and they were also bound as a matter of convention to actually double check that information and to submit factually accurate information testimony that at least one lender here american way out also acted at the retail mortgage broker which which means you're out of it you or i could walk in the front door and apply for a loan in bringing with u provided by a mortgage broker who by convention and by contract was required to provide factually accurate information because the volume that they would be providing this no different than  relationship meaning provide the nirvana well the fact that the volume had allowed it to matter convention or that the mortgage broker position to be created it created a position or mortgage brokers position individuals to the lenders because of the collective of the lending institutions deciding that they want to put a volume of loans out that they can't personally investigate on an individualized borrower lender direct contact they have created a niche market for mortgage brokers and therefore niche this niche market is in effect under it i mean if i had a contract as a you know i had a five point that was my whole business you know a real estate broker but i also decided the side i go off and i as a courtesy of some friends have five clients and i have a contract with fannie mae or whoever the law of the country where are the lender is that i'm supposed to now understand that even though that's not normally of trust position because i'm in a industry that's unique suddenly that normal contractual relationship has become a position of trust is that the thrust of your argument case the fact that there were so many in the industry that the lenders as a practical matter had to rely on it and in so doing created this new market well i think that's right your honor and  think that i think i would take that position as far as notice as to whether or not to defend the defendants or any more struck i should know whether or not they were in that position of trust certainly by them doing  foreclosure that foreclosures generally have adverse effects on credit history and so with respect to that borrower also who the government intends that i've defended james is responsible for  they that's correct so wouldn't mr james have to assume that the lender trusted him enough not to check or if the proceed with the frog absolutely or he himself was relying on the fact which and i believe the evidence showed that she she visited the property if she didn't want to live there she collected the rent and she never made any mortgage payments so she can't constitute the basis