was formed in two thousand and four by fifteen catholic orders who each contributed seed money to start the charity but hundreds of these orders were called provincials and made up the charity's board of trustees in addition to the  also consisted of a separate board of directors mrs reed was hired as pathways executive director as executive director she was in charge of day to day operations after discussions with the provincials m f a question about bank accounts ms reed was the executive director of the of the organization was she the one who should have opened a bank account for the organization she actually and this is actually an important fact she couldn't up in this bank account where the organization mystery seeking is the one who opened it and it's very telling that the charity was founded in march of two thousand and four and despite repeated requests to mr deacon a bank account for the charity was not opened until june of two thousand and four so in the meantime it fell upon his bill to pay for they are whether or not there was an authorization whether or not there was a specific permission to use the checks in the way she was using the checks whether or not be an affirmative i don't believe it is i think she could have relied on the sufficiency of the evidence and proving and saying that the state did not prove that the required elements of these best beyond a reasonable doubt and i think we can append look at just the way in this organization you know her moving on to argument was run in such a way that from the very beginning miss reed was informed that you know she would get little oversight or help from the board of directors and she had to take the initiative whether it was pain for all the bil right for herself and then we are present with mr deacon did not have any idea of how reimbursements were run so it's certainly not out of the around the possibility that you know she started by peeing things out of her own check book or her personal accounts and the organization was running and at no point did he indicate that there was anything suspicious about the way she was using the nuns using we're using the credit cards using the tax this simply was not any evidence presented that any of the actions personal matters i would argue that that would certainly be ideal but again we don't know yet mark that's right but what would be necessary that there would be an authorization to use the the account essential element of aft and state simply able to prove to the state op or any testimony or any evidence that the that the peple as the local board was authorized here's one of the things our want to start out with is the fact that i'm not going to in any way try to take in justify how pathways was operated and one issue all authorization that's the whole basis of defense argument and then we get into who has to prove what ok so st of all with respect for a purpose to pay her own personal expenses this is what we're getting to that then you justify that he didn't authorize that he hadn't given that authority he testified that knowledge she did not have permission to do that but if he isn't the person with the ability to give that permission how can he  doesn't have to be the one to give them permission it's a question of whether or not she whether or not whether or not he knew or had a reason to know that she had been given it and to his not that she had not but what is also interesting in the testimony is that at are four hundred and fifty six and fifty seven of the record and for sixty five the decision to bring suit or to go to the authorities st of all came from the board of that he same group the same fifteen provincials who ringback are normally have given permission and authority to force her to pay her personal bills is exactly the same group who decided  authorized to have charges filed against her which i think clearly indicates the fifteen provincial who were given permission if they had given permission certainly would have authorize permission are the same fifteen that were taken file charges against her for basically using funds if she wasn't authorized to use it was that proven during the trial that statement just made up that came that what all the that at that particular meeting the fifteen provincials all agreed or voted power has to be categorized stated how they did it they basically all voted to take and have the charges brought against her which to me indicates that none of the provincials that were there who would have given her permission had and the other thing to take a look at and her going to take a look at the defendant's case is there was a lot of testimony her indeed about authorize charges of pressed charges about what had been done with particular accounts of particular individuals the thing to remember is that the credenti her testimony which which she talks about having authorization all of their authorization she spoke about were for services provided true the victims and the half of the client no but you know the actual how the dynamics worked at the authority happened is bored with that presented as some type of evidence as to their you know the bylaws create the local boards as advisory in order to get local and caught a face of the community rather than decision making authority so where where is the evidence that the preventions had there was some evidence that was presented and how she wrote it and how she wrote it she never followed it but the point is i think that that she didn't have the ability to take and write checks under own for her own reimbursement i don't think and i don't think she had that authority and i don't think it was the state approved they approved the services and that's all that we have an evidence and basically zeke and she i think was going a position because of his relationship with the authority now this gets done i think to be to a question about a burden it is the people's burden of proof to establish that and i think that that testimony of at that point and once the trial judge made that finding of the cause of the state's case not the burden of proof but a burden of persuasion shifted to the defender and as i tried to explain she tried to take and carry that burden of persuasion by showing how much everything was approved but everything was approved for the services and that is in keeping but there is no testimony that she ever had the approval is something that definitely means as part of the the fence case is something they're presenting because if she had if she had the authorization it only stands to reason  she would have brought it forward and she did mr gannon it how was she supposed to pay these bills when once she went to them and was authorized to provide a particular service and i don't know the services that were better from february to june and i don't know how those i don't know why and there was never any evidence as to why it took so long for that bank account to open and as long as nobody ever suggested there she was not entitled to reimburse them it's the manner in which it was undertaken ok i'm just i'm trying to get a picture of the practical way that this is was all going forward they have authorized her to provide a service that had to be paid for there was no account from which that payment could be taken were they authorizing her implicitly to pay that from her own account or her own sources and get reimbursed for it i would say no there was no implicit for her to pay out of her own account then what was she supposed to do what were they authorizing her to do in terms of making that payment reason i say that is because everybody when i say everybody of the president who had to testify to the present trustees will testify he was totally shocked and did not know that a bank account had not been open in that period from for work to change and so on i just think that and again i don't know i have no idea where the pitfall came i have no idea where the ball was dropped in all this except the fact that i don't pay that at least in general practice i don't think that one would take in his or personal account to pay for business expenses and business services were not exactly mucking about general practice i understand knocking about this case with these stats and you're talking about them that is supposed to pay that from she would be able to pay it and so she would have been able to provide the services and she would have to well in reality i don't take and see how implicitly she would be suggested to take and think that she would have to pay for the services for an organization that she was hired to take run out of her own pocket long individual who testifies on behalf of the state is the one that was a receipt of funds that didn't belong to him and didn't open the bank account for almost six months just absolutely no evidence presented as to why that bank account wasn't opened was just established it was so that does i mean frankly it does leave a question mark if she paid for the halls and he was used one hundred impersonal it was how was that reimbursement to take place and how was it how do you take it and balance the books t what she did was balance that when she paid it she asked to have a bank account opened i believe there was there was testimony that she e mail but there was also testimony that the e mails were we see there was also testimony is that the e mails there were there were not the actual e mails but they were more of some kind of e mail file and i'm not exactly i'm not exactly sure how that is  if you can create it but you don't actually have an e mail that was truly sense so there's a current there's there's countervailing evidence on both sides of this communication aspect about what was going on that he could not know have actual knowledge of whether or not mislead was after i start an argument you do these things without speaking to the provincials and he did not do that and if we're going to look at you know proceeding with this la dealt to deal with this dealt to deal with the victims dealt to deal with the payouts i think of other bernard he was glad that she was doing it because he didn't want to do it and mysteriously in he had all the ability to look at actions or by doing that he's giving tacit approval to the way that she was running the organization and i think what we showed here was that everyone was perfectly happy with how their organization was being run advances were being taken and patents were being made the defense presented evidence that mislead out of her own bank account and debit card has been upwards of two hundred thousand dollars our own money so this money was going back and forth and while this is not you know like i said and i feel way of running an organization it's not an ideal way of doing reimbursements from the very beginning when it was started with our bank accounts and yes there is evidence misread e mailing one of the provincial sometimes these plans were going to get mixed sometimes he was going to create things for herself by herself and then get reimbursed later and the fact that there wasn't you know of or more reimbursements that have you know that is something that maybe the treasury should have been aware of he was aware matter under advisement and will issue a written decision as quickly as possible the court will stand in recess for a panel