events have to do with anything on the day of the events but that's part of the argument that it was still relevant and it's prejudicial because they used those ponse less to then argue that that was the incentive to commit the offense me he was poor two months before he didn't have the cash on him at the time there's his incentive to commit the offense you know what the red brief says about that what's your response of the government's claim that's not what was used for it was not to show poverty it was to impeach statements to try to clarify the has said that you can't use poverty such things as unemployment bankruptcy to argue simply because of poverty that the person committed that had a motive to commit the offense you're characterizing the government's argument yes i say what part of the government's i'm trying to find a place in the page where you are for going through ok i'm trying to find it also i'm sorry page two eleven of the exit of record line one so you could see the incentives and you could see have a value increases and that's incentive to see how the value increase correct and then you go two paragraphs down middle of that paragraph line fifteen are lined up fourteen is the need for money there are sometimes so he did have a need for cash or and i have a need for cash and then we take stock and then we take a look at the pond slips from february apparently there is a need for money there some months before correct and that's why i'm saying they connect is rich that just wants to get rich or poor people should have some evidence put in against them such as past lives that can be prejudicial against someone and rich people can't win the same incentive to make mo know having money doesn't prevent people who are committing crime being poor those and force people to commit congo lots of poor people who live within the long i mean lots and lots of  rich people who commit crimes to get more money you know these things i just because my response is rather straightforward he offered his motivation i think that's that's very important to have a rather what we refer to it as a cold war bust you have a person just coming into the port there's drugs in the vehicle and he stopped as he's being walked off the group to go onto the look at the agents and explain i did it for the money i need the cash and so he offered his motivation right there which is far different any case that has been cited in the in the briefing it's a person standing up in affirmatively saying in so many words the reason i did it was for the money it's not us researching  brothers across the border for their health you know they do it all the money i mean that's why most private either they do it for love you know some sort of passion as we don't see many kinds of passion i'm sorry the first is tense counsel asked the defendant on direct examination did you tell the agents i did have the money yes did you expect he paid no well he did it for the money he was in need of relevancy between these points let's say what you're talking about with needed the cash money is coming across the board doesn't prove anything one way or another it was before it was the best corroborative evidence available as a tour operator two months before the guy point a couple of nickel and dime items well along along the same lines of him telling us that he's going to just borrow this car drive it down for us and just down the next callier and come back and find him at the port of absolutely no money in his pocket how going to pay for gas how are you facts are such that it's not debatable that it's a case that was relatively not complex you know i didn't should mention time i know that it's crazy because you have no idea what they were doing you pre suppose from a time period that they must have had trouble with the evidence they with they were debating and all i kind of stuff jurors told me we just want you know we were having fun we were time at the super bowl we wanted to have lunch and then we were going to