and through eighteen if the court knowing that has questions on other matters and appreciate being interrupted with those questions like i'm trying to address something that any member of the how might be interested in  the question of the green van with the way it appears that the district court and the government's conclusion is that there was no showing of any prejudice from the delay and i've tried in different ways to try to elucidate the phenomenon of a united states embassy official named and arnaud parady writing a letter to a talent officials just a few days less than two weeks after the scuttling of this yacht off the coast of italy and saying in the letter to the italian authorities investigating this the settling of the yacht you have gemini's the following identifying information about a person named leibovich and the reason that that letter from harare to the italian authorities it's significant in the mind of the defendant is that there is greater description and greater information and a different spelling of the first name and a different country of origin given in the letter from the u s embassy describing the request of the italian communication from the italian authorities but it is clear that it came after the date when the deposition testimony of the investigating italian magistrate which was heard in the criminal trial here when that was when he was that the defendant had identified photographs of a little bit and so the statement from the u s embassy official in a letter saying for the italian authorities you've asked me for background information to give you what we can give you about this group of that which has a description and age a different first name like that is going to the first name in a different country of origin strongly suggests that the further back that was identified led the italian authorities  to write that letter to the u s embassy and they had some information that was different than what they received from the defendant about this little that whose identity they were asking about and they identify an asus ripper who was i believe lithuanian and the according to the attempting to establish with this evidence is that the there was very little information in the hands of the italian authorities that would corroborate or stand to support the defendant's statements that i can't believe this was the one who was on the advantage over the defendant however we do have in the records obtained through freedom of information act again a statement by the united states authorities back in ninety three that the government had no interest in prosecuting the defendant and that  with the defendants being released by italian authorities and accusing the italian authorities of trashing this half million dollar yacht and what what the the accusation was then was that by looking by by hacking up the got with hack hatchets and other tools looking for possible drugs because the interest was at the time the interest was in whether or not there was some drug connection by the italians and again the testimony in the deposition by the italian official was that rocco you know we were looking into this question of why the out was scuttled but we really were interested in this pizza connection whether or not there was any kind of mafia connections here and it was the friends obligation at the time that the italians were destroying the art looking for evidence of mafia crime with the blessing of the united states government and that by not prosecuting them when all of this evidence that would be favorable was available and waiting years until really six or more years later all that was gone so there would be no credible claim that the united states government had participated in the strength of that'll be the closest thing i think that we have and have that evidence in the record on that point your hon the government seems to say that there's no prejudice because the defendant is obviously guilty and that's always the case if in fact the latest result of the defendant not being able to defend himself in the case that remains will be an overwhelming maher i believe was not interested in taking the deposition of this rule asked the government had not provided any information to the defense that my life had made the saints or that there was an interview in other words i can finally evidence of the record that the defense had been provided with claim his absence is prejudicial but it would be difficult for us to also claim that that was the government's fault i'm question of overwhelming evidence i would like to just to remind the court that the government is claiming that mr george is a brilliant lawyer who has engaged in twenty years of insurance fraud knows how to do this and that he is otherwise an educated man with degrees in science and what not besides being a practicing lawyer  my point here is that the in this in the civil trial the the issues were were different than the issues that were at question here but clearly the the the defendant would have known if for insurance money and you certainly wouldn't pay for a way that wouldn't work to sink it because what happened here is these holes were cut in such weather they acted this battle's and even though it went around the water it never took on enough to think yes it's impossible to know if anything overwhelming if you look at the all of the circumstances it's so easy at the afterwards if they are the defense evidence that might have been available in ninety two ninety three is no longer available so easy for the government to indict in ninety nine and  stake in the civil case for that reason we do address that whether or not any of the alleged perjury was material because all of which perjury has to do with whether the little which story was true but even if it would have to but in connection with the civil suit that the landed insurance policy is not adequate to make the next is required with the mail fraud initiated even if you did a grand jury investigation is one of you could have you got a little that oh yes right i apologize of the government has two primary arguments in this area first that thirty two ninety two does not require that a grand jury investigation have been initiated and secondly that even if it does require that a grand jury investigation this case had in fact the gun let me ask you question here and you point to any ninth circuit replying eighteen  circuit case in this area under fifteen zero three however the other cases that the government did cite used brief does refer to the ninth circuit case in ryan which is not inconsistent with the other circuits in mind the court different the court now case the ninth circuit found that no grand jury in it had been initiated prior to the destruction of the evidence as it was built proved to be a jury was investigating anything correct correct however in this case there is proof that that in the grand jury had been initiated because a grand jury subpoena had been issued as well as a request to foreign country indicating that the purpose of obtain the evidence was for a grand jury amount of his time on all of the other issues so i do want to address the statute issue if the court has questions in this area however because of the concerns of time i do want to also address the issues present the evidence count four is the the mailing of the summary judgment motion that was the mailing of the summary judgment motion by polaris company which the evidence at trial demonstrated that defendant controlled further perhaps if the court could just give me some of the general facts regarding bronnie i might be able to distinguish the facts and this is that this is a it's kind of a hard thing to do and you don't have that much time with respect to the  claims or the questions were ambiguous and we would ask the court to look at each question in the context well which dealt with whether or not there were tools on board immediately preceding to act question the question was how did the hole get in the boat and defend it responded i have no opinion one way or another and then the subsequent question was well whether the tools on the boat and he said no that question is certainly not ambiguous in context and further with respect to the sixteen which the american authorities responded to that request and they indicated they didn't have any information regarding this to live  third over ten days after he was arrested the united states said that there could be a possible connection to a drug smuggling operation but within ten days the united states were trafficked and so we've pursued it and it appears that there's no merit to that so the defense arguments that depend it was detained for a mafia connection or drug smuggling connection really has no weight in the facts whatsoever with respect to the the mule asked argument  did not challenge in the district court the timing of the discovery the government to provide discovery on a timely basis and as soon as it was provided to the government and in fact the defense did challenge the taking of  that i believe response to the arguments that counsel has made in his argument i know that i do have some time and i don't want to waste the court's time but i hesitate to walk away without having to entrust an important issue on restitution your honor i can only say on restitution in this case that the district court did find that the civil litigation was part and parcel of defendant's overall scheme that he intended to collect on the policy no matter what it proceeds of that insurance policy and for that reason the court included the last incurred by cigna in calculating last under the guidelines and for that reason the court found that  asked so i think i can ask the question and since you're not familiar with the barony case i'm no but perhaps if there's a more specific factual question that the court might have i  is turned on in there the court said the the choice to defend and how much to defend was really only tangentially related to the particular crime in that case well in this case i would suggest the evidence victim of a crime should be forced to pay over money to somebody who's trying to defraud and then have to litigate to get it that in that case there would have been litigation and involved as well except they would have been out the cost of the policy in addition to the attorneys fees and whether or not they would have gotten that that would be very speculative on their part unfortunately if this is that would be a very bad business decision to pay and then medicaid to get something that that they may never see litigation that it be easier to pay the defendant on the policy and to litigate this case to the fullest so it was alleged in the indictment that the the litigation was part of defendant plan and certainly defendant carry that litigation to its utmost extreme he went through an extensive pretrial discovery depositions where he prepped the witnesses let me stop he kept on going he took the matter to trial were again he pressed witnesses to testify falsely and where he himself testified falsely he lost he didn't stop there he brought the matter to the ninth circuit he lost he didn't extreme causing the victim in this case cigna to litigate it and to defend years of litigation defendant had the opportunity at any given point to put a stop to that and he didn't and that's  that was the focal point of the civil litigation i think is a misunderstanding or a missed misleading of what as a little patient was all about and when you don't we need the public's opinion of this court affirming the judgment for oh i would ask the court you to consider the significance of interpreting thirty two ninety two in light of the government's additional argument that in this case the statute of limitations never even ran the government makes that argument in there in the response brief seven no i'm sorry i may of ninety eight it's true that the government agreed to give us everything we asked for but that isn't final action because we can't find some people so the government's view is that the settlement patients is so insignificant in the mind of congress that it's one of the government is thinking about presenting evidence to a grand jury that's enough to constitute the prerequisites for extending the statute of limitations and as long as the government asked for some one of the can't be found the statute never once in other words the final