issue that in fact the fact that their government agrees that there is no evidence upon which a jury could have reasonably convicted mr bunce a chance counts one through three should also be considered by the support in terms introduced to this jury but what i think is more important than that is that in fact counts one through three are a direct violation of the supreme court's ruling and the seven circuits ruling regarding bona fide yes your honor it early before trial began the defense filed a written looking to exclude the evidence under fifty of the fifty eight thousand one hundred dollars never actually been noticed of course of corby which the government had an obligation to do not only under the rule but under the court's pretrial ruling so but what was very clear is there are objections across the ality of cash alleged bribes is twenty six thousand dollars the government showed evidence of approaching twelve thousand dollars in cash being being deposited into bunch disposers account so that last approximately fourteen thousand dollars unaccounted for even if the fifty thousand one hundred dollars in this other private account could in some part be determined to be related to the fourteen thousand dollars clearly clearly the totality of the money which was allowed in and  very specific alleged right it isn't possible that the fifty eight thousand one hundred dollars related to all of those bribes because that amount of money far exceeds that it's the government's obligation whether we look at evidence of the crime being charged there is no evidence of that it's simply an account the spell by two separate people where they are cast there's absolutely no evidence of any illegality at all and so it would be wrong to transfer that burden of proving relevancy to the defendant to prove that in fact it's not really relevant that is the government's burden but once it's clear that this is evidence on the evidence as it came in the evidence that we introduced i don't know that they could be squared with skilling but i do believe that there was evidence in this case of employees who were hired who were being paid solely based on bribes that were given by the defendants i think there w information that came in that mr johns may have been engaging in activity political activity much of his time but in terms of the specific evidence that we introduce your honor we have already conceded we did not introduce sufficient evidence we concede at that point and those repeatedly that's what the court said in mccormack pain the question is where's the effort oh the evidence your ira comes clearly through the transcripts their exhibit twelve through the thirteen what happens at the time that these payments are given if the payment payment was being made in exchange for c s a children getting territory from s and ask that down says that the sheriff was real interested in these particular tickets there's all kinds of conversations and discussions leading up to it and after some time has passed boom we make the change we move the boundary from broadway to klein ave and suddenly s and ad gets a lot fewer of these trucks because all of the front private to the mills all of those trucks that break down are now going to disarm and so the jury stretching for make that rational inference that's the question is is there sufficient evidence in the record and then looping back to your original question does anything about any of the problems with count one three three about whether those payroll records that weren't even introduced with that somehow spill over the answer is no the jury the jury problem with that case really salute to the third element to the wiring and the and that that has nothing to do with the question of whether these wirings furthered the scheme the answer is that they did or at minimum a rational sufficiently conclude that they did the same follows for count four which is the deposits in bonds of his own campaign and there's plenty of evidence in the record that suggest they giving a certain amount of money some of which was going to be given through the campaign and some of which was going to be given shakhtar excuse me in cash had to be made and had to be paid by the tow truck drivers if they wanted to maintain their chilling territory comes live also makes reference to to cash payments of five hundred dollars correct it does the wiring of course is the checks that are being wired thr the deposits but in both of those instances it wasn't just give me the campaign money it was give me the campaign check and then cash was given as well now there was testimony as to count five it down to saying you know you don't have to give me a huge amount of money you just have to give me some money you just have to buy some of these tickets but the extra five hundred dollars was given at that same point in time but i think there was expectation and one can read from the discussion you know he's real interested in these tickets you got it you don't it's don't got to be a big buy but if you say it don't got to be a big buy it implies it's got to be up by you've got to buy some of these tickets you can't just say well ok i'm not buying any and that's what the jury rationally and for you had to buy some of these tickets in order to maintain your place and in particular w five because of the way those conversations are going this is a bigger buy and this is a buy that then ultimately leads to the transfer of territory it's the the money is but check is actually being given by mr jurgensen but it's clear at that time that he's at least playing off us and because he's receiving all the senate money and because it's not put on your tax which are now in the midst of that if it did come out that you know my opinion is that this did not come from a legal source but i don't think that that is that certainly was not the focus of the proximate testimony to the extent that that one limited statement is an error i do not think that when it wasn't really even objected to in the fashion that it's being objected to now on appeal and in the cont right and that's why the district court additionally excluded and then later included the defendant initially came up in the meeting at a documentary one thirty one and said look we're not contesting that the defendant got the cash that the government says he got work say i campaign contributions and it doesn't really matter where the money went and then mr bunce which testifies for days on end says you know some of that bribe money the specific bribes you saw me get on tape those i got but the cash that downs got he never gave it to me there's this one instance where he leans into the seat on the video but you can actually see him taking the cash why didn't take any cash then and then he took testifies at length to what he did with the cash well some of this cash i just spent to spend it on campaign purposes and some of this cash i did deposit into my campaign account and some of this cash deposited into my personal account well at that point the government has every right to come in and say members of the jury let's look at the evidence let's see if that actually pans out and how do we do that let's look at the cash that went into his two gives nine permitted uses which require notice for this type of evidence and i could go through all of them does he ever do one in the alice with regard to which of those nine or which among those dying this this evidence are supposed to go to a no he does not your honor but two points about that first of all the defendant never raised or fourth would be objection and the this could this evidence actually came in to page twenty two eighty eight the transcript and the court specifically says any for evidence of motive personal gain it also i think in coming here is evidence a planned this wasn't a mistake that this money ended up in his personal account this was not campaign contributions right his testimony as to the very last friday the last seventy five hundred dollars bribe the largest private as well that never ended up in my campaign account designed it up taking it as a personal loan or as a loan back from the camp i took money back from the campaign account that i had loaned earlier and i just forgot to document it so that's why it ended up in my  twenty five hundred dollars cash bribe on tape to mr downs and there were claims that other throw truck drivers that were made in the government's case that other tow truck drivers were taking those rights that was always part of the case it in fact that wasn't part of the case then what explains the defendant calling for tow truck drivers to say hey we never paid a bribe if it's really the case that this was just about these two throat drivers then calling those other tow truck drivers that would be impermissible  well i don't believe i get like i said your honor i think at best on that particular issue we are on plain error and i think that all of the facts were specifically for the jury the jury completely was told the owner i mean this was cross examined about the only reason you're stating that is because you don't know what the source of that income was you have no other basis for that statement other than that you don't know what the source that income was that's the only thing you're basing that testimony on the jury knew it and i think the jury was smart enough to figure out what that meant let me tell you this the jury note to the court asking what the definition of the reserve transfer funds were even after that's clear statement that the jury could not find the evidence they still convicted and obviously there is an impact on the entire case about this for a for b evidence it's very unfair of the government to now claim plain error when the government did not notice the defendants of their intention to use this evidence to score zero for that when we look at the record clearly the court minimize what it had allowed by the second rule and to evidence that would have been arguably related directly to the alleged crimes but it's the third third change in the order with no notice under four o four b that ultimately is the most damaging and when the agent of course testifies that in fact he believes that financial transactions tell treasury that he believes not only that mr bunce is guilty but that he has been involved in other illegal activity the jury and its and its liberations in the future are fourteen mr bunce in this in a conversation on dec twenty one t and twenty one indicates that he does not even know who mr jurgensen is march of two thousand and fifteen