the the the way this case went when the case began it was sort of a wordless actionless conspiracy alleged against our client he's not alleged to have said anything to anybody or done anything one witness alleged that he may have signed some checks she had a sixty percent identification on that so we were kind of taken aback when it turned out that the government's case was based upon a premise that we had not thought of before the trial began the the records by the government clearly established that my client had a business that involved a mortgage business a money services business including a check cashing store in that these two places were at different locations this was very easy to detect when it turned out that this was the case that this was going to be how they made their case we actually had to go out and take pictures of our check cashing store to establish that it even existed the government took the position that it did not exist even though the address for this business was clearly established in all  records in governments exhibit sixty seven b basically it would be impossible to miss but essentially the way the scam worked is the same way the scam worked in this in a lot of cases that we had this  jurisdiction it was a case where the tax returns of dead people were submitted checks were obtained and then the checks were taken to a check cashing store in cash check cashing stores were targeted by individuals who were doing th s the government's case was basically that our client's business was so shabby it was so an advertised it was such an inside job that no member of the public had ever gone there and the checks were cashed at this  place that you know was set up it must have been purely for the purpose of cashing these checks from these deceased people so in your responses that men are now the legit check cashing place was at a different location in oakland to have that right or something which is in all the records we even took pictures of it it's properly advertised it's also stringently regulated as a money services business but i have the records were i thought i understood from the record that that it really was essentially the government supposition was that my client was in on it with the people that had done the tax returns obtain the checks we had a third codefendant who was acquitted he actually testified about how this happened  said that he met with some people that were not involved with my client or mr gibson's client that they had set him up with these tax returns that they had obtained the checks and that he went to my client's check cashing store and the records are going to show to account numbers one account numbers for the university dr address the other account numbers for the check cashing store which is where all the checks were cashed in the government basically took the position throughout the trial that the check cashing store did not exist this was very it was very strange for us it was difficult to even defend at this point last minute we didn't know how the government was going to try to prove this case against our client because not a single witness testified that he was involved in any of this basically the checks were taken to the check cashing store they were given to a person named in tonio duvall a harvard educated manager who ran to the check cashing store  for my client and they cash the checks whether mr duvall was in an on it or not you know we don't know at this point this would be you know the source of this would be the main focus of our investigation if we get a dry this case again but basically all you need if you have the illegitimate tax return of a deceased person is a friendly cashier at a checkout store you can either know him bribe them whatever but if you walk in and he gives you cash the only thing that happens to the check cashing store owner is that he gets the normal percentage that he would get for cashing any check which is anything the only thing the government was able to show in this case the people actually getting the money were the third codefendant who was acquitted in the case and whoever he was involved with initially that he had to go back to eat testified that this was a person named crazy so see during the course of the trial it turned out to be a our recollection took a break and the undisclosed e mail strike that the undisclosed document that was not part of the bait stamp discovery provided to us pretrial was disclosed now or was not were any e mails presented in the case in chief regarding calling maurice and quite frankly the explanation by brad cohen which i'll feature this moment pursuant to page fifty seven of seventy six of the government's brief where the government can see that bradley cohen was unable to give us the vigil should i say the genesis of how a document addressed to colleen maurice ended up in the pos of the codefendant and certainly there was no practical explanation of how that came to be in fact the government says quote at maurice's sentencing hearing agent official iris records if the government can't tell us how they got it is sort of didn't get it from us there were no affidavits a search warrant that i'm aware of that were executed with respect to any e mail container of the the upshot of that is that we were completely caught it's certainly within can i think that the government had had included an x exhibits in addicts and disclose beforehand all of  particularly not that document and again when the time to explain what happened to it in the record came it came and went without there being an explanation oh by the way we gave it to him when this thing time you tell me the government didn't provide you with exhibits i'm saying that your honor that the government did not provide us with the letter of the government iris directed to colleen maurice that was in the possession of xander let me tell this honorable panel why that's important because the rotty over how the government tried the case was that the p t a in was like one so security interim are to be protected and so the unspoken question of the government's brief when it says reeses brady claim fails because all of the government's exhibits including co defendants examiners e mails were furnished to her discovery rendering them within her possession you say that is simply untrue and saying that it's counter factual to the allegation made at page fifty seven fifty eight of that very same brief but so in short answer to my question that's untrue well they can't both be true it can't both be that the government did not know fine but you say this statement is not true in the last the government about it when they stand up i'm saying we never saw it we did look i'm saying that when confronted with it in the record in front just like they did not say they gave it to us in fact what was actually say i don't or oath and i don't want to where you given all the government's exhibits before trial apparently not apparently not paralysed not in again we deal with the question of the letter from the government it's like that from the government to carly maurice in possession of bradley cohen who produced it at sentencing there is no indication from the government in front of judge locke at that time that they had earlier produced it and now were given dealing in some revisionism because now by brief they're saying they produced it in tells us lock when the when the when the document came up oh by the way we gave it to them that's what i'm saying that's a different question i'm sorry you're on i do whether they set it to judge soccer or not this or if they if they produced it you did see it it would know that so that that goes to the heart of the question did they produce it i can only go by what i examined over months or not i saw not denying that they may have i can actually sentencing that he didn't know how he had discovered carlene maurice's p t i again it could have been in the e mails or it could have been the i r s records he testified at trial that he discovered it in the i r s records it wasn't in the e mails and so there's no problem with that and there's no problem because the e mails did reflect  had a trial which was could it have been this could it have been that could it have been the other this was a very contentious trial it was very document intensive all the government exhibits  how can i determine from the record that your representation is tree and i think you can look through the e mails that mr gibson's talking about responsive to me i understand that point that seems to be a different point about whether that e mail really is responsive to his argument but but if you you assert in your brief that the government produced all of its existence before trial i take it there was an exhibit list yes it was filed with the district court right before trial yes and if and if if a defendant saw that exhibit list which would have been served on the defendant and thought that it had not been provided something that was in the list  could have objected and the defendant kind of objected right and all the e mails were were and the exhibits that that's what i can figure out from the record yes that they answer to my question and in to try to move miss or reduce out of this tax filing conspiracy for dead people and i think if you look at the sheer number of returns that were filed in january of two thousand and eleven and the fact that they all have  business manager and he didn't know with the towers were doing in his check cashing business and running these refund checks for dead people through the business but that's counter to what  it's just where in this loop you're we can't seem to get out of however all these arguments were presented the trial they were presented to the jury the jury was properly instructed on what they had to find to find these defendants guilty they obviously sorted through the evidence because they acquitted mr alexander e and found these two defendants guilty and there's nothing more to say except i would urge the court to look at the closing arguments of counsel where all these things all these possibilities were arrayed for the jury effectively and the jury rejected it and we can't go back and we do that so if the court has no other questions note that the prosecutor is referring to is from eleven seventeen two thousand and nine at this point mr xavier only had the one business he did not open the check cashing store yet in it he basically apologizes for  not full compliance in the government's record sixty seven b opens a check cashing store october fifteenth two thousand and ten he then surrenders the license three five two thousand and twelve these are the dates that encompass all of the checks in the case and it also wanted to clarify earlier that we had a witness who testified that she saw the store we produced pictures we did get the pictures during the trial they were google map pictures the witness testif to so they were taken during the trial it mean to imply that the court they were the pictures that were taken during the time period when the check cashing store was cashing all of the checks in this case the note that the government continues to refer to is part of their theme of the nine that the check cashing store ever existed because the note was written before the check cashing store was opened according to their own records if the check cashing store exists it's basically impossible to convict my client in the case because that means that the perpetrators were going into his check cashing store when he wasn't even there there's no evidence that he was there cashing the checks getting the money walking out with the cash the person that's endorsing all of the checks on behalf of the store is a person employee of my client there's no evidence that my client knew anything that was going on in the che called the owner of another check asham store who was not charged with a crime he said the same thing happened to him from the same perpetrators thank you thank you mr gibson honor to put this in context there were hundreds of thousands of e mails and the vet probably took five months and so we would go through i don't know two three thousand a day and sort them out on the e mails when i heard the government just indicate and i have no reason to disagree with that this letter was not part of the e mail traunch it was a letter and the letter than how this paper came in the possession of special agent bradley cohen and and so part of the mischief i find in my own head intellectually because i i can't say that i'm in part that i'm perfect that i've missed it i go back to the exhibit list it is not mentioned and in fact it wasn't a part of any q and a during the trial it came out on the issue at sentencing because the government's basis was she had to give him the possessions and that's when we first learned of it i will say this impact clearly that is not a plain error standard if in fact it is a brave evaluation that would be to know though if in fact it wasn't shown to us during trial and it certainly affected what we would have place in from the judge on the motion sever because our defenses were intact in istic let's i want to be clear in the last twenty two seconds i have here one cruise to experts first