the law because the sufficiency issue in this factually intense case requires a careful review of the trial record just does this court did earlier this year in revers as in this case was set forth in a factually elaborate sixteen page indictment that indictment was read to the jury at the outset of what the year described him do you trail in the court's instructions and sent with all the exhibits to the jury for their use in during deliberations as was the court's instructions in written form nothing absolutely nothing in concise version of the one you proposed i would take strong issue with that there's not a word of what i suggested in those instructions i defy the court to find anything of those  is whatsoever for the availability of they'll ability of the legal defense and the trial court's attention is specifically directed to that defense if it is reversible error for the court refuse to charge the jury concerning that morrow the instructions must be sufficiently precise and specific to to enable the jury to recognize and understand the defense theory tested against the evidence presented at trial and then make a definitive decision whether based on that evidence in light of the defense theory the defendant is guilty or innocent you drivetrains to present your defense theory  i'll come to when one bent the difference is the yacht peculation by the that's what we're calling about talking about the judge again and again tells the jury about the government defendant's theory is important as the source of the law and the only new cool three year before the jury his words are potent and then he added that reality drives the yard idea that a defensive theory is best expressed by the judge and the phrase expressed by the judge is highlighted by the greater of that opinion in this case in that case and that is precisely what's demanded in in a criminal case it is not enough i've tried enough criminal cases where again and again you have the government's theory which is factually s which is part of the recognized just cited words it's three paragraphs three substantive paragraphs and i defy anyone to show me where there is not support substantive evidence supporting what i say it's done in legitimacy of my defense it's not he's not saying you must accept the he's saying this is what is legitimately being put forth by counsel for the defendant and when that's not done you don't have an even playing field and the jury goes into the jury room with the factual assertion in the indictment nothing nothing concerning the defense theory of the case let me make one of the point where i take issue frankly with judge judy and bottom here noted in that opinion fool r t that it's not exactly this court has not exactly painted a straight line in the issue in that clause of the fifth and fourteenth amendment the charge was really examined in the full context of trial including the final arguments of counsel it's those last four words that i take as much as i respect the judge's wrote those it makes no to what difference does it make how well i do on the making my argument if the judge has not acknowledged it's fully duty as he had with respect to indictment it's not a very complex issue and is judge higginbotham points out the court has it various times made statements like where you got him to to fight an argument why i mean unless the court has some questions don't get me wrong i think we have a very strong issue and sufficiency but i don't think i can help you much on the oral argument i think you have to do which you didn't ganji you know very well articulated that substantive the sufficiency issue you know i think is was something you alone can deal with by looking at the trial record and seeing if the government met its burden of proof the trial it's i submit to your on it as the panel that is controlling in this case right now it's time for this court in no uncertain terms to specifically instruct the lower courts that in a criminal here as the district court make clear the statement was paragraphs of closing argument argument containing contested facts and indeed the court proposed an argument as an alternative statement which the defense counsel rejected as giving the jury without anything to back it up and indeed that statement said quote mr parkman denying she conspired with anyone at songs twenty three says knowingly violate any federal law nor did she knowingly join in any such conspiracy as to all counts she contends she did not act with the knowledge that her conduct w unlawful and the very issue that its defense counsel raises is that the heart of miss parkins defense was that she did not knowingly violate any health care fraud statute or did she did not knowingly conspire to do so that the very statement that the meet them all i don't talk to the judge few more minutes to do this and it took more time to not do it so my question is what's wrong with that they were trying to do the best they can if you accept the in connection with that instruction he spent some time talking about the referral fee and missed parklands belief that the acceptance of a referral fee was not illegal what evidence that the government offered that right and my question was what evidence did the government offer that she knew except in referral fee was illegal she took it let us do this when she took those payments by way of  and talk freely about what she did and that's either the product of a very sophisticated criminal enterprise or someone had really strong evidence that she didn't think that what she was doing was  wrong the jury well so let me stop you can't see if you're going to agree with me that she could know that falsifying medical evidence in order to get these people qualified for these devices you have to be that she could know that that was well so she gets the people to sign up but then once she makes them with furlough and she gets the fee my question is what evidence is there that she knew that it was wrong to accept the fee for making the refer in other words you can falsify documents so that you have someone who qualifies for the equipment when in fact they don't qualify but then she and then should they pay her a c for every referral what i didn't see was of lot of people who were in the community during the day that decade were acting as market and not because i see so but because the government the witnesses lisa