mr sturtevant may have been convicted on paved legal theory which is not sustainable the scuse me the indictment in this case charges false statements and representations to thank you mum and it goes on in there to say that they mad statements about how many trees were cut and how many trees were what made it onto trucks so you have two areas of false statements that concerned with here now the problem comes in because making false statements about whether or not the trees were lighted on to the trucks is number of trees that were the number and  business started and the initial contract was for the collection of cubic yard keurig which was the clearing the immediate stuff that could be loaded on to trucks and  what happened is the famous man mr roberts got together with a local man mr clark and they had the board of supervisors for andrews and i developed argued very force well he was actually doing work that he shouldn't have been doing and getting pathway he was driving the truck he was helping with he was on going and getting supplies he was cooking and sout there were several things that he was doing that he got paid for that probably was a conflict of interest and the but that was not that was according to approximately twenty thousand dollars pay he says he was packed somewhere between thirty and forty but the deposits of cash t the amounts he had deposits of those amounts the over the course of the period of time and then he had a thousand dollars that brant paid him that in the i think it was two thousand and seven that was supposedly for the payment of a book that johnson's wife said she never sold him a buggy so that sions in other words not loading the trees onto a particular trauma and we can't tell whether he was or not because the verdict was in general and the government argued that laing about putting the trees on the trucks was a false statement to fame on then if that is not a crime then according to the case law we have to reverse that the conviction i'm trying to follow this is argument maybe is just still early but i thought that evidence about the trees cut the size of the trees and whether or not they would fit onto the truck went to the frog with regard to the charge tickets and get submitted which is to say i thought the government's contention was you just couldn't have cooked that many trees and limbs based on the size of its trucks and what would have what would have been hauled away by the primary contention is that the two bases for conviction if one of them is not legally supportable and you can't tell from the verdict which one is convicted then we are required to number of troops didn't match up to the capacity of the truck now that was a zero that was in no way material to receiving a patent from fame whether or not the evidence more your honour's going to cleveland for the government visits is really focusing on factual matters that were presented to the jury the judge jordan considered in both his muesli non ruling new thirty three ruling she challenges some of the government's prove mainly the government's reliance on evidence that what was claimed on the load tickets exceeded the capacity of what could be carried but this does not invalidate the conviction it's simply a challenge to one source of the proof it applies equally to both of the objects of the conspiracy you had the false statement object and the conversion object the thousand and one and six forty one the jury was instructed on those elements of the for the court to keep record thirty five seventy three thirty five instructions that this court has recognized so it's not a question of one object this proof applies equally to both of the objects of the conspiracy it's not a question of one hundred being valid and one not any of she didn't get into this but in her argument but it's it's inherent in her or agreement which is she says this just a contract violation any ambiguity about how trees were to be disposed of under the contract was fully explored at the trial and offered only one possible explanation of why what was listed on the letter tickets exceeded the load value of the truck in the trailer so that we used to haul the material as a chicken bottom refer to the youth the proof showed the usual practice was for the loads to match the trucks on list or on the tickets with the difference being accounted for by the fraud there was proof that there was some small logs that were chipped some large ones in the on log books but this was the exception the proof  that most of the material most of the the meaning trees and the hanging limbs were ended up on the low trucks going to the dump site which is what was consistent with the terms of the  a small amount you could account for by them being chipped or being picked up by a load but a lot trucks that something was would not make up for the fraud these folks made up out of whole cloth there was ms up says well there was  telling governments about eighteen c different refers to what johnston should say and how that's going to be our defense that's pages twenty four twenty five of the exhibit quoted by judge burton at page eight fifty five of the record somebody rats on somebody that's page not of exhibit nineteen b he goes on to say the best thing to do is the stupid routine they can't send you to jail for stupidity that's going to be our ticket that's pages fifteen and sixteen of the same tran there was just ample proof ample sources of proof there was not a problem with the with the with the the legal to the theory that it would the government have to objects it was not an objection ever made a trial of the government's proceeding on out i have other issues air and that will point out that each and every one of the people who drafted this ticket said that that was not material and nobody followed any why they trees were  there's plenty of testimony that the people who were cutting the trees were working ahead of the capacity of the trucks to hama was so what they did was they cut the trees they put them on the side and the that way and nobody thought that that was important on the people who loaded the tickets there's nobody from fema who is they are saying whether or not they put him on a particular truck had anything whatsoever to do with how they were being panicky they were being paid by hurting the trees and the size of the truth and what the monitors do and what judge johnson when finally admitted that he did was that they would go ahead he would put down the number of troops he's on the ticket and that people would come back later and pick him up so if this young man was convicted because he did not comply with some ambiguous tom in a contract that nobody thought was important anyway and they didn't have anything to do with how he was so regardless of whether he could have been convicted for one thing which is a legal argument as opposed to a factual argument whether or not you can be convicted for violating that contract is a legal issue and so it's not a factual issue it's as a matter of the wall hey keep they convicted of that so that if the jury didn't dad and i were relevancy of whether or not days trees were supposed to go on the truck space it was not made until after there was considerable testimony about whether the trees went on a particular truck or not that was matted during wallace