customer complaints containing by two part of assertions untested by any cross examination about what diamond had promised to the writers about how the writers have been evicted or otherwise harmed as a result of diamonds activities or just showering  the ledge victims of specific counts who did not testify so for instance an e mail from oil wells saying that he and his wife and i got what they thought the us this is important because as you know from the briefing the government only called two out of i believe nine  that exist to ensure that evidence is real while that in particular the jurors are hearing evidence that's not being tested by cross examination you know the customer complaints were out of court statements offered her their truth even in as much as the government frames them as about the rejection letter specifically and it comes before the e mails are even introduced so it's not it's not like it's referencing back to them and i'm just a court just given the jury and the same jury lemonade instruction  that that could be from the jury's perspective that could be acknowledging the government's request it's not even particularly formal granting him of the government's right so it's i don't believe that's enough to have to inform the jury i mean certainly the government talking about a limited purpose the government the government has no power to instruct the jury in the instruction on the court and in fact you know the instruction of the the court gives the jury its pacifically tells them if the court tells you something no authority to do that for you the trial counsel i was not i'm just wondering how it was argued to the jury you terms of well when when the lawyers were making policy argument  nobody understood that that limiting instructions have been applied within some of the aisle that court said that the it that i mean the court stead that the court said it was only admitting it for the limited hand sometimes you can't get to the same sentence if you if you can't use a certain one and there are other ones out there that i'm looking at you're trying to get more i just  don't disagree with the government's argument about about more i don't think they've been shown to have whatever would be a substantial number of vulnerable victims that they really didn't quite up the circumstances of almost any of his clients the only  know didn't make a specific rulings that fired on it didn't you know it didn't demand evidence from the government where that was fired and certainly didn't explain well i think i think you are going for your client that the district explanation of him there and if you look at mike go through your believe that you don't need a lot of explanation because the court's been clear about that but you need something there there really is just nothing here he you know you know can short handed in any form explain what he's doing you want to reserve your time i'm the record a fair reading of the record shows the complaints were not admitted for their truth but they were never going to show defendants notice to the defendant and the complaints effect on the reader the government requested and received  accepted the core truth of the letters which was that the people had complained to the defendant that he had lost or that they had lost their homes and i think the argument of the defense meeting closing was essentially get it if it was not the cause of and also i just would i think the court has already pointed out the defendant did not make an objection or asked the court to read the limited purpose instruction at the time that the complaints were emitted a nd time it because it was not necessary to do so calculation you know methodology and logic if they're dropping you know three hundred and fifty thousand dollars with no particular explanation it's not clear where that and from and and when you look at the actual testimony in court if it's just an agent saying look i signed you know i signed these payments as being from customers based on some criteria that another agent gave me is really not a lot of evidence there to work on so it is i think it's highly possible that have the core trust that you know and are you willing to run the risk that he may get more time isn't a non truth purpose even here they're talking about the substance of the letters being relevant i mean the substance of the letters you know yes if you need it it needs that garbage earth to treat is true that people were really being evicted on christmas true and i would just point that the case you said that the government points to about notice in those cases the underlying facts are being proven through other means where the notice is true but the underlying facts are being proven by other means not a point you  say philips which is that of the land fraud case where the government could sing ten complaint letters on to show notice that that the sellers have forgotten these complaints but also put on twenty five live witnesses to