review the documents requested by the bank investigator and did meet with him five days after the call with respect to the invoices themselves they were in disha that these were in invoices the government suggests that the fact that the invoices were not produced for all of the twenty two twenty three twenty two checks is indicative of guilt and indicative that suddenly twenty or so people show up from around the continental united states with tax refund checks that they're using by endorsing them over to buy all of a sudden at this one particular institution doesn't is that record doesn't they she didn't produce any other checks so as far as the record suggests these are the only twenty two checks that they receive that they only have the only checks in the record so i guess the answer to that would be yes as a result of the superseding indictment did any new evidence become relevant that was not prior to that time known to the defense the record would have appeared to indicate  counsel was not prepared for trial and was not serving well the more directly to europe point and i suggest that going to trial with lawyers one here  court rejected the government argument that increasing the length of the conspiracy two years didn't increase the burden on the defendant because the evidence would have been admissible anyway which implies that the evidence was available to them in that case just as it was available here the question therefore isn't whether the isn't whether the evidence is available is what is the burden on on on trial counsel with respect to actually preparing the case it's one thing for the government to say we intend to supersede and it's another thing for the government to actually supersede there is no indication that they absolutely were going to to do it i mean you and in any of that that adding over a dozen new counts three days before trial you would think would be prejudicial to the defendant on but that's a general proposition when this particular case is there anything what i don't see in the record is any example or statement that would show here is how we were prejudiced it was here's some witness we couldn't find in time or down over and signing it roger only and the evidence is clear that this was a busy junkyard of the time when when the bank and ministry or the investigator went there my client was in the back room there were two other people her husband and other employees serving serving customers at the at the counter this was a busy place with four hundred thousand and dollars in their deposits and over the course of an average of the voices for years right for a jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that mr sanderson knew that the checks were stolen property of the united states at the times to steal that property in the united states by depositing the checks into her account now direct evidence of specific intent is seldom available in this case here is no exception but when the core looks at all the evidence is that a jury couldn't hurt especially using their common sense and their everyday experience us knew that these checks still she was then the government have any evidence about how she got the checks and what's the government's theory of the case beyond the fact that checks were cashed by her business fraudulent sokolov they have some rain is there anything in the record that would tell us that was not happening we know that was all we have is she got check she cashed the check correct right that's that's how that so beyond that what's the government's basis is there anything beyond that that the government relies upon to suggest that it's more of an inference the more likely in front is that she was played some role in acquiring the checks theory is that you have this defendant in possession of twenty two checks she successfully deposits twenty one and on the second check it's stopped at the bank because they realize that there is some sort of fraud going on and the case is referred to a and presented an identification and at that point the fraud investigator also asked if she has a copy of the necessary documentation from the puerto rico police to to prove that these parts were not stolen auto parts and she said yes and they agreed to me in the meanwhile he checks her account and notices that there's twenty two other checks there now when you finally meets with her there is a narrative that she explains that these are twenty two individuals who when you look at the face of the checks have that sounds implausible right but if i understand defense's argument that's what she would have thought people were coming in by now that she looks back but i think her story could easily be understood as someone december january and february church checks then we get a little bit more brazen five checks in march three checks in april seven checks in may that's almost two per week and she is the individual who wrote the invoices because of the of the only eleven  voices which she was able to present there is her signature there and when you look at the story it's even more impossible because many times the purchases were for i'm ounce substantially less than what happened so these individuals out of the goodness of their hearts that have charts with mainland addresses were going into power was buying these used auto parts and then leaving her as custodian of thousands of dollars until they would come back a days later to pick it up not only that to believe her story that because we know that the names of people whose social security numbers corresponded to that to the tax refunds were not the ones that went there the majority of them testified at trial that they did not file those refunds they never lived at that address they never saw the check they never endorsed it they don't know who miss one is how this might be you know this and they never bought purchased parts so to believe her narrative you would have to believe that twenty two different people went there with false i d s bearing the picture of the individual who had the check that corresponded to the name of the check and that she apparently talk to you and kept photocopies of them and yet she was unable to produce any of this now that's just didn't pass the sniff test for the jury taken together with the hectic account activity the numbers also are very indicative that this was a fraudulent enterprise you look at her business account and there was over close to three years of records there and in those three years her deposit amounts were for little one thousand two thousand three thousand dollars now here the checks are for six to nine thousand dollars but what's more important what happened from january of two thousand and nine t october of two thousand and eleven she rarely transfer money from her business account to her personal we have a total of five transfers and in more than a couple of years that total three thousand one hundred five turns january two thousand and nine to october two thousand and one but in the seven months vanities twenty two checks for twenty one checks deposited the twenty second attempted to be deposit we have twenty five transactions the total over sixty thousand dollars being transferred to her personal account the jury was able to see this hectic activity they also saw purchases from her business account to clothing stores to marshall's to the children's a subsequent transaction of remitting a day or two later the excess well from the invoices it says that everything was sent in half and when you look at the account what you do see is transferred away and just says that she actually made it it's not apparent from the record that after the deposit there is a big withdrawal of cash that may justify have you have the account to which the checks went into that's correct or on the business in other any could go back and look at that exhibit three point three which is her so they commence the theory of her defense would be that she was depositing the tracks than she was instead of drawing a check on account actually went and got a couple thousand dollars in cash the checks were deposited that there is this unusual and heightened activity to her personal account and that usual and kind of purchases that were were not there during the period of time prior to the checks and to get back to one of your honor prosecutor and the bank representative would go one by one on the date where the check was deposited and then subsequently talk about the different purchases and transfers to the personal account of the constants in the record yes they are well there but they were as evidence i believe it was cks themselves are over one hundred sixty thousand dollars and then the transfers that she made to her personal account exceed sixty two thousand dollars i do not have the exact number of the odd type of uncharacteristic purchases why would a junker be going to the children's place victoria's secret marshall's paintings sam's i mean there may be legitimate purchases there but that unheard terroristic activity that wasn't there before i do not have the total of that i would be happy to supplement the record if your ener was appropriate well i don't think you can supplement the record book not a supplement the record excuse me but write a twenty eight j letter that my mate do that math to try to account for if you want to point just to some documents in the record you can do that with the twenty eight yes your honor we can look at that exhibit that is the the bank statements and and do the math but we do know that from the seven months that at that point sixty two thousand and one into our personal account whereas prior and over close to two year span only three thousand there's nothing in the record and just again about how she acquired the checks the government didn't seek to try and prove that all you know there's nothing customer purportedly these are the invoices that she provided and it does bear her signature she stated that she did hear those voices thank you thank you your honor it's telling that my sister the first thing she said is that when the investigator came that my client thought that there was only one tech in question and i suggested that's exactly correct anybody who was actually involved in the scheme would understand that there was more than one checking question the that the the government misunderstands the fact twenty two different people didn't have to com honest question is the way that you come in possession the checks there's no doubt she went to the u s can i just say i know my time is up but i just would like to say this notion of hectic unusual activity i find to be strange this is a family owned business that has a d v d a account when there's money there you take it and if there isn't money there you don't take it that certainly they were making that the fact that they were accepting these checks seemed to help their business that doesn't mean that it's evidence of guilt i asked my counsel a question about the timing records here in the bank statements in terms of you take the bank statement for a business account and look at the inflow into that and then you look at what went to the personal account and then you look at the items that went to a known payee is there enough left over in cash to the plausibly that they have really the answer is yes it is but i'd also suggest a junkyard fees immediately available and he says then he appears so how does that ows an appearance on friday and then shows up on so given that the judges said you've got to be if you're prepared i'll let you appear right so when he appears isn't that a representation of these prepared well that's how the judge stated that on the record what's wrong with what he was saying i wouldn't but i would i'm not prepared and i find it hard to believe that he could be prepared there's just no way he could be prepared so that that that the notion that there is this fiction that because they were that condition was poured on it and therefore he must have been prepared is a fiction and the one don't always you know such can change their minds particularly judge who says you have a counsel you're not prepared i don't think it was you know was he taking a chance sure on the other hand what's the what's the what's the client face the client faces i do go to trial with these two guys