is the victim and brady v maryland that case says for us that the government and they have the power and authority an ability to develop a case that even exculpatory information which would come to there much easily that would come true to a person who's been accused of the crime to start all this before you get too far into it's never been transcribed you didn't transcribe it and since we just don't have it absent from the record i see what you're saying and with respect to your many challenges to the district judge evidence suggests that the government may have tried to purposely avoid bringing out any information that would be on the brady and would be a sculptor and i say that because one of the witnesses the government trust that the founding claim c he's the seeking and she indicated that she went into the research with going into the system with lower case  almost everyone today knows that a lot of governmental documents official documents a case sensitive in the upper case a lower case while she indicated that she went into the research whether or not there was some trust that had earned any kind of interest and listen title to a refund she loop she used lower case and response to my question and she to look at anything but lower case so since things a case sensitive nothing she would have brought up in that research would support any other type of trust other than the trust that  claiming what happened here on is that what was a present to brady it appears that the government did you know a type of research that avoid it anything that would show that there was another stress first of searching out and trying to get some money from his security we never could bring that up because the government did not indicate and void it coming up with any other trust other than to trust the didn't  it is case sensitive this upper case a lower case and i'm saying brady requires that the government when they're asking for information from the treasury department they must ask them for everything they have and if they wore  receiving everything they had they would have received other trust in mr jefferson's name was ruby social security so that avoided the brady thing and i'm saying that they did not comply with the brady  attorney's arguments and statements and that evidence well each time he said that it isss out cause the jury to someone out and then the court said that i made a statement that  that even the judge missed her or didn't hear what i said so therefore was the jury really able to follow my argument when they do so now particularly when the judge didn't hear something properly and so i'm going to reserve the rest of my time for you but thank  employee searched for records under the name of the trust using lowercase or uppercase letters is entirely irrelevant the witness testified that she looked for the records of the philip closing argument the district court in its ruling emphatically rejected that claim and in detail went through the objections raised by the government during or defense argument that the thrust of which was to add to the government's burden of proof or trial by seeming to require the government to specify some account or  fact that when mr jaffer said had been approached by the i r s revenue people after the issuance of the check and its cashing he was informed of the administrative procedures by which he may contest their claim of their notice that he had been issued you know wrongly issued this money and she gave it back and the suggestion was that well he was this was a civil matter not a criminal matter and there was properly them what chase bank how did they defend themselves the government could have provided information shown that there's a social security account but that's not the way he attempted to get this money again he was deliberating i just feel that they're with they were almost instructed to eat eat their lunch and concentrate on something very important that is this liberty and the freedom and the guilt of this man i don't think that's proper to has even instructed jury to divide their attention on even lunch and deliberating on the evidence i think that the now i did mr justice and  tea that the property belonged to was another flaw and as a constitutional lawyer you have a right to confront your accusers and i think it may be a very seem seemingly technical but you i was attempting to get it whether he made a mistake or not but he used the wrong document or not is not the question is the question and that he could defend himself against who was the proper and rightful directs the jury to divide their attention i think that's improper also so he's not able to defend themselves thoroughly i think based on that it's not an acquittal he should be allowed to have a new trial and really properly prepared to send his case against the charges the government is saying that he doesn't have a complaint everything was done properly he was duly convicted but  well as you throw some money at someone you don't check so when you check the second time they ask for some funds and you find out it shouldn't be sent to him that's three hundred thousand dollars not a small amount of money it's almost like entrapment you know