from the defense of a company to circumvent their own corporate structure and rules and policies but what is interesting about this case is that believe and so you know very well about what happened there where this was freshly established to set up this commission that was received there and commission is not something that would have been title for that individual to receive but for the way this was set up and it was so in this particular case you have months of trial testimony where everything is comprehensively sorted through details about all kinds of work and you know it's interesting that mr golden is one of the handful people  qualified to do this work so he does have qualifications to perform this work and he did use the expertise to practice his chosen field he did but again there is no getting around what the original intent of the parties was we would argue it is significant we understand that in the ninety's significant other cases when the top prosecutors officer is that in aggravated battery situations the restitution is an order that means that you can argue that it didn't occur because if there were any damage and peculiar iwas it would have been covered in the sensing hearing and he would have made a ruling on it but there wasn't a single thing not a dime so something not being done as arranged contracted or understood and so  not the loss or the gain of any benefit to edit the property that's taken by deception is the payment for the services that your clients were not entitle before under their the terms of their contract w crucial this isn't an intangible it's not a quid pro quo it's not specific performance they did not have to show that they actually lost money first of all as we pointed out  that they wanted to bring financial gains to themselves and his and senate she said well if we did if we told you we were they wouldn't of can they wouldn't have you know entertain the contract with us which isn't necessarily son and then we never would have gotten work so the whole scheme was to set up this car there was a serious because because it didn't say it's rules work if you have a company or in your immediate family members have a company that wants to provide it through our legal department and that's what's really important here because the new suit to the money nothing get the benefit if they got the major service they got the service from the company and they did well they were true not guilty of not having they were charged with theft and that they had a feeling too they took money for repairs not done and one of the testimony was there were like forty five people because one thing it doesn't even make sense it would be the user benefit of the money would be determined by the parties rendering the service it just doesn't make sense at all if i were to put an end paper and say i want somebody to cut my law that intent was to give that money to someone in this plight in the neighborhood to help their economic condition absolutely not i didn't receive the user benefit of my money i can and again it's not a matter of  findings which we do have on the record about work not being performed it's interesting also that we were a little bit of a disadvantage the research so short of negotiation process or bidding process that resulted in this company receiving this business f so that's a factor for you to consider is the intent of the defen modifier or a descriptive factor to accept the argument that your clients were qualified to accept the money because your answer seems to indicate that you  not contesting the fact that your clients receive monies in qualified or without qualification not but we're looking at a situation where we're governed by the law as it is written here and what our argument is is that even though these facts are as presented to you that there has to be some argue about it federally don't really have much of an argument about the intent and what should be covered in the statute but the way this is written we are new does not cover this particular situation and for those reasons we're asking you