they please accord good morning runners i'm pleased to be here this morning on behalf of the band of family who are the owners of a number of entities that are the subject of these proceedings are here in court with me today and they flew over with me on an early flight from st thomas the issue in this case is a relatively discrete issue that arose as a result  proceedings that were tried before honorable one sanchez a disk record judge who was sitting as a virgin islands district court judge the issue came up after the proceedings the trials that were being held before dr sanchez were concluded and the issue came up because the attorney mr stewart gibson who was the lead trial attorney for the united states government in connection with the claims that the government was making that the bantu family owed the i r s millions of dollars in taxes disclosed that he was now that it needed to practice law in the virgin islands he was not admitted to practice law in the state of minnesota and he was not able to be  appearing in connection with the proceedings that he previously had been mr first in mr gibson was not the only attorney representing the united states government that case was a no dare all the fight was present throughout the proceedings however as the team leader and as the lead trial attorney and as the driving force behind the government's intent to target mr vento mr gi when there is a problem in the court that prejudice is not required i believe that the most significant harm that was caused to the bento was when mr gibson in front of drugs the answer came in and said i want to introduce this document so that it can be a part of the record in this case the document was dated october the twenty fifth of two thousand and four and it was authored by mr and mrs then tows lawyers handler they are in dugan and what it did was it told their clients happen eventually that there may be difficulty with this structure that relates to hold your victory against them you prevailed eventually at least for the vento so the parents for the for the parents in our court we won't hold that against you in this argument thank you but  you have an attorney who is licensed to practice law taking such an active role i'm going to compare it to a steamroller coming in to a virgin islands court to target this family because they moved really the government he was he was there on behalf if he wasn't there someone else would have been there taken at his i don't at all likelihood with all due respect your honor i do not believe had a lawyer who had taken the courses who would have been aware of the provisions the twenty eight us code five thirty be the mc murtha amendment i do not believe that he would have come in and said and say i got this highly critical attorney client document off of the internet and now i'm going to cross examine not only mr vento about it but i'm going to cross examine the lawyer who prepared the original yet you never raise that argument in the district court and i just a couple days ago read your reply brief you didn't even answer the response of the answering brief of the government where they accused  waves of never raising that and waving the argument so how is the argument of one of the court on the court even before us as a as a legal matter when you look at practically practically speaking when you look at this issue when it comes up the first thing that a lawyer does is he says wait a minute i don't know what's going on here yet but you never write you never raise the fraud on the court issue in the district court and you didn't reply to the government's answering doesn't say whether he's admitted or now but then the u s attorney comes in and says he doesn't have to be admitted and judged banner that comes back and says quote it's customary subject to his admission we can proceed again at the appendix page twenty eight through thirty subject to what if anything you say is true but the rules of this court require in order to make an argument for the primal it has to be a raised in a  but their position is your argue about something that's not before court well your honor when the issue comes up and i make the motion for an avid bench rehearing which is what we asked for and for discovery the specific reason for that was so that we could making your honor litigation is not something that you look at in the confines of a snapshot when we found out about it we brought the motion we asked for discovery we asked for information and what i have in my grief is what we found out during and after the proceedings took place in front of judge sanchez who your honor i believe is as much a victim of this conduct as the bentos judge sanchez was was led down path to believe that the ventile family were tax cheats and liars and evaders and that they were saving nine million dollars as a result of moving to the virgin islands it was said again and again in iley mr gibson withdraws that what he did was he poisoned the entire proceedings against the broncos and as a result of that the vento family was unable to have a fair trial they were unable to have due process of law when he came in and he grabs something that he says is off of the internet which we didn't know at the time i was in trial counsel i learned about this after bringing the motion in front of you and just as as saying i have to find out about this this is an issue this is a due process of law issue that relates to the vent hose family ability to present their case and i find out that it was a grant from another case that was sealed and he takes it on a case where there's a motion for a protective order and lines and says it came up to the internet and in the record through mr gibson's disclosure there is an explanation as to why and for how long he was on license to practice or if in the state of minnesota yes or and what else what else is a seventy three hearing going to develop for you what else is discovery going to develop for you that you've done and what the court doesn't already know when you have the ability to determine what mr gibson did when you have the ability to take a look and see who he directed to get information that should never have been brought in to a court that was because they're going to poison the proceedings so that mr and mrs vento could never have a fair shake i believe that we're you have to and under the federal rule of twenty six the new electronic disclosure provisions in this is happened to me when i get a document that the attorney client is happening and i look at it and i read it inadvertently turned over to me i have an obligation to call my adversary and say john listen i got something over here i'm going to send it back to you and i'm going to strike at mr gibson did the opposite he turned around he gathered this information why so that that would spill over in front of judge sanchez's mind and destroy anything that came out of the bank those mouth and then he quit the creek then he could be icing on the cake he goes and he puts in more and more and more the nine million dollar claim he had been admitted i want to take attorney client information and put it in front of a of a client when he should never be questioned about those things how about feral and if they would have done that as they did the attorney what how what honor i think that had he been admitted in had he taken the courses that require that he take in order to be advised of the changes an ethics that changes and obligation the government of attorneys have not just to prosecute a case but to say assure that justice is being done that he would not have done these things and it was the years and years before he may please the court the district court has entered final judgments with respect to all three of the issues that were raised by the pleadings in this case that held the bench trial on the residency issue that is whether that those were residents of the virgin islands at the end of two thousand and one at the end of that bench trial the district court found that all five of the bentos were residence at that time the taxpayers appealed this court in a lengthy opinion reversed as to the parents and us to the daughters in that appeal the taxpayers raised no objections and no complaints without any evidentiary matters that were raised during the trial and they raised no complaints or objections about the conduct of any of the attorneys in any of the government's attorneys during the trial the second issue was the event those investment in this a illegal tax shelter a sum of was tax shelter the government filed a motion for partial summary judgment on that issue and the limited liability companies of the three daughters and there was a separate bench trial on that and at the end of that bench trial the district court agreed with the government that there had been an anticipatory assignment of income as to why it would even be justified there's no basis just in their motion to the district court they suggested that they want to determine whether or not as a result of the unite the bar status all of the actions taken by the situation to a situation where there was attorney misconduct and we're turning misconduct exist in the case of the forest  i think it is your honor because i think that if there was no prejudice ok tell us if you think it is tell us why you think it is tell us why that's the more proper standard as opposed to looking at this question as strictly a matter of fraud on the court might have told them about what he can or can't do nevertheless what he did is all out in the open and you know that this court can see for itself whether or not there was any harm to the proceedings will blow up sanchez certainly did not think that there was any it caused any harm to the proceedings that he saw to certainly certainly administrative matter that that had no effect on the on the conduct of the trial of the case you know and since he presided over the case i think that this court ought to give some deference to his decision i mean he sat there he didn't they in effect raise it in the way they cast their claim in seeking discovery well now while i would not agree to that no i don't think that their emotions to the district court could be fairly raises their opening brief on the appeal so so you know we do maintain that it was waived but even if it wasn't waived that fall far short of needing to managing standard that this court is required in prior opinions that we have the inherent power to inquire into the integrity of our own judgments and under that power in face of the allegations being made here that we have the right to look at whether or not well yes y isn't this isn't exactly the same as the attorney misconduct that was inforced this is alyssa different case in that case they were actually referring to specific instances of misconduct in the course of the proceeding here although they say that the prejudice to them they'd be certain acts that the government through mr gibson took the issue here is whether or not his lack of bar active bar only presenting his or her case and that just didn't happen in this case that the taxpayers all over represented by able counsel that they had every bit as much opportunity as any other litigant took to put on their case the main point of prejudice that the taxpayers now raise which by the way they did not raise below they did not raise on your opening brief on appeal we saw it for the first time in their reply refine appeal and it's the was raised on a reply brief when i had no opportunity to submit anything in writing in response to that but i will say that that that that that that document was submitted in the second bench trial the taxpayers attorneys objected then they still have the appeal pending before this court with respect to the daughter l l c cases and i think that's the proper venue to raise that but we dispute it again we have no opportunity to to of other evidence rejections or evidence really matters including that you know this is the thing that they make a lot of big deal of this nine nine million dollars swing in potential tax liabilities depending upon whether they're in the virgin islands or the united now i think that's a silly notion i think that the you know just sanchez was able to hear and consider all of the arguments that were made on the on the other the tree matters and that's good as i said in the reson he trial none of those matters were raised on conservative doing the proper thing as an officer of the court and it does not make sense well because you are what whether or not he was right or wrong and he something even admitted attorneys make it incorrect  unethical conduct of practicing without a license to do so and why you know that's the way he practices lawyer doesn't care about the proper decorum of the proper rules of proper  ethics he didn't care about his bar status he didn't follow it he didn't follow that you could say this is a pattern of activity all of us are judged by our past and what we're going to do with the future i would judge him the same way  my time is up but i get i can only go back to such sanchez's rulings he presided over the trial i mean he did not think that this had any negative effect on the conduct of the trial or his ability to make an impartial decision and i think that there's no reason for  subject to your being minute before this court that was a condition preceding to mr gibson going forward mr gibson ignored it i sit here in front of you having practiced law in these communities for many many years and i can only imagine what would happen to me or another private practitioner if i had done the same thing that gibson had done to magistrate baron or to matt to district court sanchez to the justice department you would probably be cited by the new york bar i probably would be  pour in minnesota isn't the issue is you is twofold i would see it here in minnesota bore although they admitted that they gave him back his license on october twenty fifth if this information was brought to their attention they may subsequently suspend mr gibson in addition the virgin island bar or the bore of the district court of the virgin islands could consider this information and consider disciplinary action against mr gibson  isn't that where this issue lies it's even further your honor because i have to go back to the minnesota sketch because that's really where this kind of piggybacks from because the penalty is more severe than your honour's indicated it says failure to comply noncompliance status administrative suspension a lawyer or a drugs who fails to meet all the criteria to be on your active or in the active status is placed on noncompliance status and the right to that's the way i look at it and i think that's the way my clients would look at it if i had done the same thing in there shouldn't be two separate standers if your basic position here is that there were the government a lawyer for big treated that by private practitioner lawyers honor that that at the bottom of the whole thing there shouldn't be a separate standard for mr gibson in this case thank you very much thank you very much we thank both coun your arguments in this matter and we will take the case under advi