the disaster unemployment assistance program was extended to the island approach now that the program in never been administered on the road and rhode island as well as the commonwealth does not have any sort of unemployment compensation procedures so no one at least on the island of rota was familiar with the program how it works how all the costs are how the program where we're perceived as a result the united states department of i am and how it works we think that it's just a plain and simple well you know where you're working yes or no because western it really that simple well are you a fisherman or a farmer yes or no if the answer is yes and you can prove that your livelihood with wiped out by the typhoon you're entitled to benefit the answer is no i wasn't even on the island when the storm hit and i was  general location the time of disaster struck for instance if there's i can put in a claim from seattle for relief from hurricane katrina under your theory if you were a salesman and you had your business territory mariana islands knowing the size of this island knowing both of you legal relationships that are discussed in the testimony during the case concluded that there's a fair amount of knowledge that the defendant would adelaide may have known what people were doing or may not have no time to go about the evidence that i read in the transcript of the trial i mean the fact that some of these people were literally nieces and nephews and that circumstance right from the evidence but what you would agree would you not that if we were looking at a los angeles county jury verdict again a case like this we might not cut as much slack as we would for what i will i think characterize as a rural jury that certainly based on the evidence in this record heard an awful lot about the mealie all relationships as it pertained to what the defendant must have known when she certified that these were valid you know with the heard was that there may have been familiar relationship with some of the claimants however there was nothing that said what knowledge she know about the fact that you know we've got the one victim who works for the airline and she admits the claim is a fisherman or a farmer and the question is was there reasonable for the jury to include that your client knew she wasn't a fisherman or a farmer at the act in relation to this matter go on have you read the the delegation orders i read the presidential executive order and then i read the the order of the director of the human to the department of labor and it didn't look to your client was to imperil the integrity of the commonwealth such that the district judge worried that the next time a super typhoon hit that theme i may be somewhat seat and it's not clear whether she means the senate or whether she needs a seat that was vacated by ricardo adelaide the government's contention is that it doesn't matter anyway because certainly ricardo adelaide was indicted in two thousand  that that and regardless of when she was convicted she certainly could have the intention of running for political office in december two thousand and two as well as by the fact that later in two thousand and three she did run so says that she certainly intended to run before implanting this plan because it would it would not make any sense that the plantations in august the elections in october awesome she despised an obvious from the very first time i think i'll run for the scene of my senate six eighty six in the excerpts of record that is one of the exhibits you can actually see that you didn't wipe things out very well you can actually see the riginal marks that ninette adlie put in and then that we're wired up by from that you we're unemployed and that should be unemployed as a result of the storm and that it be your primary source of income so for example for all these students right i mean going to testify that although he had some farming he made twenty dollars application second he's trying to pick which statements should be true or not by saying well it matters in the message of a case in which the jury said each of which were were false statements therefore they found jurisdiction in materiality weren't submitted to the department of labor but just some stations none of these documents went to the department of labor that's not to test the green decision of these of this court so very clearly that false statements do not have to related back baccarat back dated so even if you say they should have been eligible and again that's not the issue under one thousand and one the fact is they wouldn't have been eligible no matter whether or not they were farmers  even have a chance and he testifies you have a chance to film and all those claimants statements were filled in there almost all verbatim were filled in after the fact the claimants never say any of the stuff that they're alleged to have said in their applications that's another area where it's false and she explains that she got that language from the defendant that she wrote it in after the fact and that she spent she quark's in on a on a monday morning and for me to tell her they're coming to pick up the files to fix this and they spend the whole next two or three days filling filling in marriage certificates and trying to fix up the applications you so i just didn't get to all of them which is why if you look at ryan mangling his application the part of the says claimant statements is blank and she says i just didn't get to that one so the bandits defense was in the heat of battle in trying to get all these claims out i just didn't have time to dot my eyes and cross my t and the government's theory was no doubt it wasn't that it was that you didn't have enough time to do it in a timely fashion you were basically making up corroborating information to make it look like these claims were legitimate when you knew they were not correct and she also argued at the at the trial court and this goes to the jurisdiction question which you are the trial court was that fema not us department of labor but that's pima fell down on the job and didn't train her properly required had authority figure take the funds back so it remains federal money throughout the program and addition is not a situation simply where once a disaster because of declares a disaster you're entitled to do a fema no you're goners correct my reading is that female essentially because of deals admit expertise and unemployment involves do deal well and it's a ministration of the program but fema never know that's what the white house council does when they draft presidential executive orders i think that's right you are and it's worth noting that all of the case is decided by the defendant that would say that you know he doesn't have any cases that say fema does not have  he has cases that say that another agency has jurisdiction but that's never been a problem to have more than one agency the supreme court decision in rogers is the most important word said i just find it makes false statements in an investigation run by f b i secret service it's not unusual to have more than one agency involved in the federal government and the supreme court says look that's fine you can have multiple agency jurisdiction what the problem is not too many agencies jurisdiction the problem would be if no agency had jurisdiction in the defendant cla concedes that at least do you well has jurisdiction in addition to fema i want to address a few more points on the right with my remaining time again it's the materiality question is not whether any agency federal agency acted on it which is it could have affected the jury clearly found it answered that question specifically because in the verdict form or the conspiracy count the jury was asked to specify what was the actual false statement or what was the actual overt act in the jury simply said the false state of the merits or to certifications or false statements so the jury clearly had to have found that those are the director of the federal emergency management agency i did not read that language to mean a complete abdication of responsibility for how these funds are going to be ok but i'm reading from ok very good thank you