and we were here finally united states versus gerardi and now please the court alexander shapiro for stephen aiello the wire fraud statute only prohibits schemes to defraud victims of money or property the government's theory here that any theoretical failure to shell out share potentially valuable economic information is money or property fraud goes farther than any other a prior right to control case has been de explains this court has repeatedly rejected money and property fraud where the victim received the full economic benefit of its bargain and in every case affirming a conviction there has been a showing of actual or potential economic harm to the victim but this case is different the government did not prove that fo schuyler didn't receive the benefit of its bargain or that it could have made a better deal or that anyone misrepresented facts exposing for skyler to economic risk the government's theory cannot be reconciled with mcnally  court's decisions in starr novak region middle stat and shell f not to mention its reasoning in cases like been de infinite where the court went on at great length to explain exactly what the detailed products they're essentially the government's theory here is that steering business to a friend which is a merely at most  steering business to a friend and does hiding facts about that amounts to wire or property sorry a money or property far that's not even on a service is fraud under skilling where you have to also so have a briber kickback and it certainly isn't money or property fraud under mcnally in addition in this case not only did the government failed to prove any  any potential economic harm or any intent to affect economic harm but the defendants were precluded from introducing evidence that they complied with the contracts and ford scholar got the benefit of its bargain got high quality buildings at a fair and reasonable price on the st part of your that argument that you just made about how the government hasn't proved that it was any harm and any harm to  economic considerations tell me why that is not the way we should look at this well st of all if you actually look at the facts particularly on the core side of this there wasn't another bitter but there was ample testimony from numerous witnesses who worked at fort schuyler that the the r of p qualifications were fair and reasonable and and the board was also fully aware of the details of those are f b s and so and might have been other bettors if they are of p hadn't been so tailored well but that would be the case in any of these cases for example in the middle  where you have a several different examples in which somebody who's working for the county i believe in the these villages is steering business to entities that it has an interest in that's that's no different i mean basically what you have is is at worst a collyer steering business to particular companies and then the real question is you know these were it just to take a step back i mean the projects here were extremely complex of projects that required a certain level of skill and they wanted local developers because the whole point of this program was to inject  state money into these troubled upstate communities that were were having economic problems and so it made sense to try to to have an r p that would attract a local developer with the capability to build these kind of sophisticated projects and the government in something asked the government to address this matter that the th schuyler had the opportunity to see the r f p might this be a different case if it had never been aware of what he was asking of bitters well it's certainly might well be be a very different case if you hadn't had the involvement and signed off on the board on the actual specifics of each of the our fees in  question for sure so for instance i'm asking this because at one point one of p wanted someone with what was it fifty years experience and if the board had thought that was  a ridiculous requirement or an unnecessary requirement it could have sets out that's absolutely correct your honor and just to be clear and others may address that in more detail my understanding with respect to that is well that was only on the buffalo side th are and then it was actually a mistake that was corrected and on the other side it was only fifteen years from the beginning of the same way they had thought we don't we don't need fifteen years experience they could have sets the board member or key personnel at fort schuyler who said the lack of the response was due to the fact that there were no specific construction projects attached to the r f p for the preferred  gerardi did give input on the provisions of qualifications which is not illegal after giving their input these provisions in qualifications were vetted by ford scholars board chair who testified at trial water barbara that the r p the provisions in it were pro competitive they're not tailored to core and in fort schuyler's best interest right there that creates a big hurdle to the government demonstrating that there was any risk of tangible also came out of the testimony of four scholar witnesses i think fooling and mr gere water barbara and i also believe just of shell and also even the government's cooperator kevin in the construction development industry it is not uncommon for an entity that is going to run an r f p to ask for input from from developers who are actually at the end of the day going to end up bidding on the pity so there's nothing on tour about that and at the end of the day those are not inherently put it it can be that stand in a way so that only one particular developer is consulted and has that and  right i mean it's one thing to ask everyone to weigh and it's another thing to ask one particular party to weigh and mander to to to do it in a way that advantages that party well that would may have been the case had provisions were fair and pro competitive and what really underscores that point and kind of belies the government's case is that the same r f p syracuse r f p was the st one out of the box and then it was disabled exact syracuse r p the preferred developer designation well then how could that same r f p be used over and over and over again in regions where core wasn't even competing and that kind of underscores the exclude but you really have to separate out in from my standpoint in the analysis the difference between differentiating between the intent and actually showing objective criteria of a tangible risk of economic harm which doesn't exist here the st of all the the government i mean for scholar was never deprived of an opportunity to negotiate the best terms to negotiate with whom ever they wanted to negotiate with there was also  no deception at all and any time as to the qualifications of quare to perform the services that they that they promised it at a certain price and the actual services they were going to do none of that existed here so even if this this panel and this court is disturbed or your eyebrows raised by some of the what you were describing judge and you may see that there was an intent invents to exclude other compares and or or or or to deceive it doesn't still meet the threshold of demonstrating arrests of tangible economic harm here what we're asking this court to do is to really the court has already had this core a framework here we're asking you to just reapply the clear bright line of demarcation between cases in which the izmir deceit which this may fall into it perhaps some  intent to exclude in a polemic nary an initial screening process verses cases where the fraud goes to the fundamental part of the bargain which is typically price and quality and that didn't happen here as there was no deception as the qualifications of the corps the prices the price they were going to charge or their or the actual services to be performed and that's what differentiates this case from others in every contractual setting ok if if there were missions in misrepresentations and the right to control wire fraud was applied it would be too expensive especially in this case with there was no actual exclusion much good morning your honor in my four minutes i'd like to try to cover for quick points touchtone you asked about the tailoring of the or of p s let me just this is in the record but the key aspects of the r f p that were changed or are added a provision emphasizing m w b e contracts every witness who testified said that was consistent with the governor's objectives with all state contracts number one number two local contractor again  anthony kennedy andrew can and he testified for the government that having local contractors handle this work was consistent with trying to revitalize the economy in those towns number three sophisticated software this was language that every witness who testified for the government agreed you want to have a contractor that knows how to manage sophisticated construction projects with sophisticated software number for alternatives to financial statements everybody agreed that that expanded the pool of potential candidates so what you're left with when all is said and done and i appreciate your question about the fifty years which was immediately corrected and had no impact on the betting that the substantive changes to the  a bribe or a kickback there was no payment made for the changes are made to the r p i think as well as my colleague mr williams pointed out every witness who testified that they understood the industry explained that it is not uncommon for acknowledge that through the torturers route that the jury instructions in this case provided at the end of the day the government has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an economic discrepancy between what  a reasonably anticipated it would get from its contracts and what it actually got from its contracts and the government concluded by saying that the jury had to acquit if i jury was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the th scholar got the benefit of the bargain a very significant concession and entirely consistent with the language from bin day that mischa peer already read to you so what was the bargain and issue in this case if you take a look at the government's opening statement look at the very st paragraph of the government's opening statement they tell you what the bargain is in this case if i can just quote briefly this is a case about lying and cheating to get huge state construction contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars all paid by the taxpayers of new york kelly harris rigged the competition to make sure that the companies he liked would win those massive state contracts that's eight  where the actions that you took consistent with the competitive our people roces answer no they were not question what if anything did similarly get as a result of that conduct answer a contract to build what was known as the solar city plant question do you know approximately how much that contract was the the cases including from require only that the misrepresentations are non disclosures can result in tangible heart doesn't have to be tangible harm and and why wasn't ford skylark exposed to the potential of tangible harm by the limitations on potentially on the better pool the  did not limit the number of candidates who could participate in it if anything it expanded that pool number to the language that was allegedly tailored wasn't even visible to a potential candidate unless they requested a copy of the r f p and got it  so it's a the fundamental premise is that the this process didn't limit the number of potential candidates number one number two i completely agree i don't think anybody will quarrel with the notion that the right to control jurisprudence as it exists is that the victim ends of doing business with somebody it might not otherwise have chosen to do business with that is why in the record below you see repeated reference to the fact that i think even judge could probably appreciate it that the government had to prove bid rigging rigging plus is not just an assumed hey you know because you selected a particular contractor to win this r p process others didn't compete therefore we're going to assume  that you got ripped off or could have been ripped off on price and quality something more was required and that evidence wasn't presented in this case and so my th and final point is for all of those same reasons without any question the defense should have been allowed to establish that for scanner did get the benefit of the bargain the evidence the record is just replete with efforts mostly spearheaded by my colleague mr shachtman trying to persuade the judge to let the record that the case that the government tried and again you look at their opening statement you look at their examination of schuler and frankly you look at the testimony of the two can see the construction company representatives bills and balling who should bargain in this case that the government tried to prove to the jury through its opening statement and its witnesses was that the ultimate bargain the brass ring what this whole thing was about was a scheme to get these massively valuable contracts in upstate new york not not just to win the or a fee and frankly your honor if the if the if at the end of the day the scheme was just to get the are iffy there is no way just getting the or of p becoming the preferred developer had any implications w conceded that so if the world is exactly as you have described it there is no right to control wire fraud if the world is as they tried the case which is the brass ring where these contracts in upstate new york again the rebuttal and indeed to give me a minute of that and if that's acceptable to the court would be appreciated let me begin by saying this none of us are asking this court to overrule any of its prior right to control cases i think what all of us are saying is this is the right to control on steroids for lack of a better expression and right and what he did was divert its t shirt and fleece business to a company south bay that he had a undisclosed interest in when you look at the opinion in the case particularly lengthy sufficiency discussion what you see is that diversion right cost arpa stoli both in terms of excessive price and bad quality i've joked about the case and you're if you know you're giving them fleeces that cost too much and quality is bad so that one can truly say that our pistole i apologize for this was fleeced and they were right now step back and ask the following question what if none of that were true what if he diverted it to south bay but south base prices were reasonable and the quality was good right you would say to yourself well a lot of what was written in that case that supports efficiency is going on right but more importantly i hope what one would say to oneself is look it's a terrible thing it's judged nothing to be happy about if your employee is diverting something to a company that he has an undisclosed self interest in but that cannot be wire or mail fraud because if it were suppose there were other manufacturers out there might have attracted other companies right and honest process in mcnally might have attracted other insurance companies an honest prob process in middle stat i would have told that village this guy has a hidden interest but what the supreme court taught in mcnally and this is a one thousand three hundred and forty one case is that undisclosed self dealing by a private employee is not mail or wire fraud and that is fine as oh without the proof of harm that what you have is steering it to your own company and that cannot survive mcnally or skilling or middles that and that is why i suggest when it came to discussing that case right when it came to the sufficiency section the court didn't write well this has the potential right to harm our pistole the court said this costs arab histo money and property and remember one is starting with a statute here that says you obtained money and property so my submission to you is it's not good to self heal it's not good to steer something to your own company it's not good to sell property to your village that you have an interest in and not tell them but that is undisclosed self interest remember when you look at skilling skilling and forty six case right to the court says i think i'm right in saying it's justice ginsburg's says look you need a kickback or bribery and the government says one step further  the government says the step further is that a private employee right is depriving the his employer of information that he would want to know it's a breach fiduciary duty and the court said we're not going to go that far that's this case you're back to saying to yourself you don't need economic harm you don't need higher prices you don't need worse quality think this case takes you and i think if the court goes there you have to say mcnally is different and line up the facts right make kentucky ford schuyler make the employees there the people whatever the theory here is loosen minnelli's not guilty of this you start with the proposition that what what was rigged on the buffalo are he and the answer that came from this star witness is the fifty years judge had sure that's a mistake i think you could spend your whole life trying to type fifteen if you get fifty that's a great bonus and that's great but it wasn't done by mr similarily and he protested right when he saw it the nd thing that cooperated tells you is that this had to locust in in buffalo but that's true of all of these projects and the governor's head economic advisor said that was the purpose of all of this so in terms of the buffalo are he i don't know what here is tailored but assume it was and i plead with you you know you have wonderful language in your case cases about how you sufficiency has to be taken seriously because it's of the utmost importance it's especially so in these political corruption cases it's hard to try these cases right people think new york is dysfunctional and corrupt but i plead with you to look at our brief on page forty eight and forty nine and there was a chart there mr similarly encouraged me to put the chart there and it each step of those he did not do anything that's all he did and i have less words i've done this long enough to know that if you say to a court ask my opponent it's really not good for him but if you ask him my opponent what is false on page forty eight and forty nine the answer i think will be nothing so i don't think mr similarly did anything wrong no matter what the standard is and i think the court thank you will hear from the government they please the court again my name is matthew but also the and i represent united states on this appeal as i did at trial below well mr wood just a simple statement this case was tried in front of a properly instructed jury which convicted on all counts the only question really at issue here in the only question that's been discussed is sufficiency in the deficiencies of the evidence is absolutely clear in this case  may be helpful just to emphasize a few a few facts we've had for defense arguments for defense replies and in those replies in the arguments there's quite a number of assertions about what the evidence was at trial there was don't know rigging it didn't really hurt for schuyler and so on but all of these issues were actually tried to the jury they were contested at trial and the jury found for the government  and what do they find found happened in this case st there were hundreds of millions of dollars of public money available for development in upstate new york it was unclear how much would be initially and ended up the projects in this case were worth about eight hundred and fifty million dollars at the end of the day that money was controlled by an entity called fort schuyler which had a board and the board controlled controlled that money the board also had rules to ensure transparency and competitiveness when it came to all warning the contracts in awarding that money now the defendant wanted to take control over that money they did they wanted to get the money  and they wanted to avoid the possibility that another competitor another company another developer or another construction manager could come in and essentially outbid them in the or talked about this at some length you talked about the possibility that a competitor could either die for the business that is offer a lower price or a bigger company a national company could come in the t e that similarly competes with and get and get the contra yes so what do they do they took control of the money and the way they did that is they worked with lynn kelley arrows on the inside to create a process that they represented was competitive represented complied with the expectations and rules and processes of four styler but did not and what did they get in exchange for that they got the authority the right to control the money in this case so the harm number one is the prevention of a another company coming in and offering a better value or a better service to fort schuyler kevin shuler talks about this in his testimony he explained that was the thinking behind this scheme it's we didn't want some other company to beat us and frankly that's the intent is there any evidence that that's that was the fact yes yes you like you so st of all i  think this is for example in shambler the court is made clear in these cases that where the intent is clearly reflected in the nature of the scheme don't necessarily have to have the effect but let me actually point to some evidence in the record about that and that's the testimony qualified right so the point being yes i put in a put in a bit i wasn't precluded from doing that but i knew i wasn't going to win the bid because the way this was designed was to make sure that i wasn't going to win so no surprise that no there is not proof that at the end of the day the building would have been better or a different better material or anything like that but this actually goes i think i'll go with the bit is there any evidence that you just gave two examples of one potential bidder who didn't bid and one who did missing something two responses one is in the main responses really the defendants were choosing that you here's why one is in two ways one is the way that the r f p was designed was to make it so that would be favored when of value weighted so it was designed not to be competitive it was designed to match what they would be strongest at and so therefore everybody else would be even if they were better in some other ways that were good for for skyler they would be disadvantaged there will be two winners of the buffalo r f p tell schuler though don't worry you're still going to get so riverbend project the one you care about and indeed you can even pick the other person who gets the this sham and i was but it's the board it's the board of fort schuyler that has the power to do this that's why they need board resolutions each one of which says there must be a competitive process and indeed we are only award for meeting you for tyler meaning years it struck me is curious that it would take an investment in order figure out that there was that problem rather then you know board that is reading it and to that extent if they have the ultimate ability to say no this is not what we want with respect to the r f p or if they have the ability when only one beat is received or only two babies receive to say this is it competitive enough for a lot more options and then also might lead to decide what kind of a contract they're going to go into it's it's difficult for me to see how they are deprived of control of their property and help me out i'd like to help you with you some board members who see them because they're also working out for schuyler but if you look for example at the testimony of roland a studio what she explains is in voting on this i rely on the understanding that this was done in a competitive way in  conformity with our processes she doesn't she doesn't review the r f p she belies on the representations of the folks running the day to day that it is in practice only in cali arrows so it's not quite the case that the board is actually reviewing all of the documents alliance by a few here i believe it is your honor i mean they're relying on the representation of the person that they even trusted to run the process and he's represented to them i did this process in fact he hadn't let me actually i think it's interesting to point e that he was able to write this however he wanted and people didn't even bat an eye and initially and then and there really leads to sort of a final point about what the board saw or didn't see in addition to not reviewing all of the documents and i will be clear that i want to overstate some of them for example like gerry barber he did have day to day involvement so he did see documents some saw the documents some were simply board members voting but even those members who did see the day to day documents what they didn't understand is the full picture which is what is the implore of the of the items in the in the r f p and in the process that's being put into place by cali arrows so they don't understand that when you put these particular items together it favors a particular company jerry barbour made this point in his testimony i think there was a question about he says sure looking at the face of this it seemed ok but the question is well what if you could it turns out that that actually these fever in in practice a particular bidder and he says well no that would not be competitive that i would not consider this to be a competitive r f p if that turned out to be the case and it didn't turn out to be the case that's why i cite the testimony of balls and billing they who do know the picture because they are in the industry they know the players they look at it and they say yeah this thing is rigged the people inside for schuyler who are not in this industry are relying on kalie arrows he's designing these don't know that they don't understand what the import of a certain combination of headquartered in buffalo certain gerardi and relayed on to cali arrows talking absolutely explicitly about the ways in which they need to put in qualifications that will favor these particular bidders things that are unique to them that's where the fifty years comes  companies right no it's the fact that this was being done with how be there oh so getting to keep his position even if these are not payments in the classic sense of bribes that it's that the corrupted the process in that it was represented to the board that this is a competitive process and a fair both in the board was denied the truthful fact that it was not a coup but that it was not a cut competitive process you still have to show that as a result new york was somehow paid got a shot of your product or was somehow injured in the ultimate construction project so the answer is no me let me give twenty two reasons for that one is as the cases make absolutely clear i mean the language in de makes clear i would actually be interested in making the comparison with the question is whether the scheme contemplated that harm and of nature of the scheme the neat very nature of the scheme contemplated that harm because it's about preventing preventing somebody else who might come in and offer something better a better service a better value that is the that is the entire purpose of having a prove a misrepresentation that goes to potentially valuable economic information and that was that happened here happened in two ways and this hopefully also loop back to the question judge reggie asked a moment ago which is there was a representation that in fact a competitive process engineered to get the best value was followed that is a representation that for schuyler board members relied on this was in their testimony in evaluating whether to contract with these parties and improve the contracts and that goes directly to their ability their ability to assess the benefits and burdens of any bargain which is the language and in day and but i also do want to emphasize another point about this which is the competitive process is part of the bargain that is something that for schuyler understood they were getting it is written in to every single one of these agreements to the notices to proceed to the memorandum of understood memorand understanding and to the board resolutions we are getting we are contracting with this person because they won a competitive process it was intrinsic to the deal that that their counterparty had that and  and that in that was emphasized or explained by gerry barber who said in his testimony yes this was critical to us because we can't continue to exist and serve our purpose if we don't have transparent and competitive bids why they're in it for scholars entire role is essentially to promote economic development through the expenditure of sunni research foundation funds and in this case economic development funds from the directly from the state of new york and so it's it is both that this is a representation that makes it on unable to the board unable to evaluate the deals just like in fanaa and again i can come back to that comparison but it's also something that is of critical importance to the work it is something that is part of their part of the bargain they t shirts or different quality t shirts i don't think what the proof in that case though is is that those to t shirts that were ultimately bought were bad i actually think it was testimony as i understand it that there were some benefits to those t shirts but the point is that is a case where a very similar fraud occurs but it occurs in a for a commodity where you can readily where you can readily compare the price of the teachers the quality of the teacher what we have here is the same type of fraud in the context of real estate development or contracting for state money now it is not easy it is not easy to compare whether an enormous building would have been built differently or at a different price by another company in a counterfactual but that doesn't mean that the same type of fraud can occur in this context and in fact it was the entire purpose the design from start to finish of this process to was to avoid competition on price was to avoid the possibility that a big national company could have come in and beat out similarly or core they were candidly successful in that they were successful in that and that's why you you can't necessarily tell what the delta is in value but you don't need to and i guess the she said was there i i find that there was intended to culinary last year based on exactly the reasoning we've just been talking about what she said is i can't figure out exactly what that loss was without engaging in speculation but she found that  wasn't intended to last and she found that based on the nature of the scheme and the testimony of kevin schuler explaining what the purpose and frankly the obvious purpose of the scheme is which is to prevent some other company from coming in and offering something  whether this was tailored if you read the testimony of the have fellow who's had a procurement he says i've looked at it then i've looked at it now i don't see any tailoring here that's twelve we're told all issues we're trying to trial of course the one issue that wasn't tried was did ford skyler lose any money we're told there's no proof in for nazo that the t shirts were bad right it's a different opinion than the one i read every single sentence in the sufficiency discussion is these t shirts were bad the price was excessive the quality was poor we're told that billings and ball somehow prove this billings testimony was we didn't bid because we saw that fifty years and it made us think this is for similarily right well maybe but mr simmons really had nothing to do with that it came out of that contract or or that r f p and if that's what this case is about right you can't charge lucy manelli  with it again fanaa is about losing money and property and that simply didn't happen in this case and what you're being asked to do is overrule mcnally here is what the court said mcnally it was not charged that the a lead in the absence of the alleged scheme the commonwealth would have paid a lower premium or secured better insurance here is no stat to convict the government had to establish that the admission had been was intended to cause economic harm to the village or that it could have negotiated a better deal here's polaski you must affect not only where the money spent but how much money was spent every single sentence that i've just read you the government has told you is false is wrong right now then we're told you can't show this kind of case you just can't show economic harm and and we're told read the sentencing transcript i urge you read the sentencing transcript the judge did not say this was too speculative the judge said you could have got somebody from turner to come in and said we would have done this at a lower price this is the only product ever produced in america that we can't turman the price and we can't determine what's reasonable about it the judge said that's nonsense on stilts i submit to us nonsense on stilts this could have been priced and the reason there was no proof the reason no one from fort schuyler said we paid too much the reason that no one from fort schuyler said the quality was bad all of which was s the reason it wasn't said is because it's not true i thank the court thank you two quick points your honour's st on tailoring all of course suggestions through mr jordan's handwritten comments would have broadened the qualifications not narrow down and yet there's no evidence of any other potential bidders on the syracuse side nd government counsel said all we're arguing is sufficiency and that there's potential economic harm here that's not true we were precluded from putting on a meaningful defense because the judge on the false premise that quote not getting the benefit of the bargain is breach of contract getting it is neither here nor there in a right to control case at appendix one thousand two hundred and ninety two which is inconsistent with all of this court's cases including the two most recent ones calderon and johnson we were precluded from putting on evidence that we did good work at a reasonable price which at a minimum is meets the lolol bar of relevance for showing intent the government had to prove that we had a specific intent to harm for skyler evidence that we did good work at a reasonable price is highly relevant to whether we intended to cause any economic harm we were precluded from doing that and there's evidence in the record that after this indictment and and this trial and during this trial that for schuyler did an audit of the film and found the audit found that the price was reasonable they did not try to  please the court so st of all to a point i think you may judge ragin there is no actual exclusion is no risk actually here that there's a potential for actual exclusion because there was an intervening event got the state government and you can only testify to this and i think there were others even mr issue that the local development requirement was what they wanted here because they valued i quality local developers and it was no exclusion of our region developers partnering with a local developer in syracuse to bid on the project and i think what's telling in this particular case is that the government originally invision using the  testimony in this is in a record a few brewer local syracuse developer to show that there was some deterrence however buber brewer and the government of the drop that particular approach because super brewer did not apply for the r p in a timely manner so there's actually no evidence of exclusion or risk of exclusion here at all thank you every single witness testified that elaine kelly or us did not communicate that to them that the government went to the jury with an argument that that was implicit in requesting that an r f p be drafted there is not a single witness judge not a single  contractors solicited ideas from the contractors certainly played a role in at a minimum editing the r f p process so no doubt he played a role but but independent members of the executive committee dealing was permitted as part of that well look i'm not here to defend self dealing as a broad proposition what i'm here to suggest is that as a matter of right to control wire fraud simply selecting similarily  think at the end of the day you have competent executives who are responsible for drafting the or p with input from elaine kelly or is no doubt who then evaluated all of the companies and submitted their responses independent from cali heiress if you look at the record each and every one of those folks said callias did not tell us who to pick kelleher us did not put a thumb on the scale for any contractor and then that same executive committee which included the chairman of the board the head of procurement the general counsel and some construction people within the organization picked what contracts went with what contractors broadly speaking there is an evidence that elaine kelly or us essentially funneled this work to these individuals but even if he did do that under the nd circuit right to control wire fraud it's not a crime last point point is his point is the government argued that the scheme contemplated financial harm to new york i think that really does make the point that many of us have been trying to make that at a minimum at a minimum the defendant should get a new trial be as they were prepared to take that issue head on the question of whether the construction work gave for its kind of bend of the bargain goes to that whether the scheme could or did cause tangible economic harm and goes to the question of whether the defendants intended to deprive ford skyler of money or property i respectfully request that the circuit acquit the defendants including dr kelly heiress and in the alternative grant them a new trial thank you very