case the prosecutors did not set the record straight and they have several opportunities to do so one of the main contentions that we have is not only did the judge find that mr peterson w a letter that was in october of one thousand nine hundred five that mr lance had sent now it's important for us at this late stage to have this court look at exhibits number five ninety five and exhibit three zero one and in the excerpts of record that you ordered up from the court excerpt number fifty seven tabs six page twenty if you look at these documents together you're going to see that the record was not set straight on an issue concerning the whole boltons matter the tab referenced in the three six that the auto judgment was not paid in full that he was using letters sent and dated october one thousand nine hundred five from mr lance together with a subpoena so that he could show those to mr bolton's and the representation to the court was that by doing that he was keeping mr peterson from our supplemental proceedings because mr bolton's would be able to break mr peterson down and would discover that mr peterson was using and banking with mountain bank that it is a direct line that was known to the government dalton's when he hundred ninety four so it was all done in ninety four and yet they're presenting something to say letters and subpoenas written a ninety five relate to the boltons matter we also know that in their thr when they interviewed peterson when after he pled guilty that he's saying that letters that were used had nothing to do with autos or vault and they were supposed to be for the washington power company and then the turning land different cons do it peterson because the auto judge was paid off and then you for the government doesn't come forward and say oh we got the wrong stuff they don't even cross examine on that so it's our position that the prosecutors just can't say well  in the heat of battle we didn't know what was going on it's our position that from one nine hundred ninety six that's when they did a search warrant in the trials in two thousand and one nine hundred ninety six they knew  that that judgment was paid off in one nine hundred ninety four exhibit five nine five shows that were the ones that had to bring it out peterson when he testifies at look at page six hundred seventy seven thirty six peterson's bird act and he intentionally does that and it's not corrected by the prosecution the prosecution doesn't correct peterson fumbles a little bit he says you know i fax those and again the government is that now in their hands so it's our position that those when you read those you look at that that shows knowing and not correcting the record and they need to correct it on one deposit and three business days judge but timed judgement only gets to it he's wrong and it looks like he thought there was a series of more withdrawals of of cash beyond those three business days when the first notice of the heavily and what he did is he says i think that the teleporter needs to look at that issue and i think they have to look at the f b i see so i'm going to let mr lang stay out of prison and he is out on bond because those are significant issues that i want to pass on to the court so our reading of that order is that he was not dismayed to us he was troubled and he was passing the buck to this court and he wants this court to say that it's not right to have a caliber of mr peterson come into the court who does not appreciate his oath who just as valid as oath and tells the jurors point blank you can believe today that i'm going to he said that they was that he's a liar that sort of thing i believe now when you have that when we presented them and we presented to the to the to the judge and the judge says that i see that he did commit perjury my court he he gave e march he was asked when was the first time he ever came up with that basically and he says well to any basically because in his grand jury testimony kid minute that he knew nothing about  the relationship of the trust accounts in march and he admitted that because i said to him in your grand jury testimony didn't you saying that you had no personal knowledge about the march documentation and that that was the deal between buster schreiber and mr lentz and he point blank in the courtroom said yes that was my testimony at the grand jury but today and given a different testimony we think that that was enough to trigger the judge to say wall whoa this guy knows how to take an oath took an oath in the grand jury he gave this story in there he's give he's incapable of appreciating his oath and his moral obligation you have a moral obligation when you come into the courtroom you have a moral obligation and we have morals we all have morals an interest in having the truth come out and it is not unusual particularly in criminal cases to have competing views as to what happened sometimes with which it is very clear that one side or the other it doesn't have a very clear recollection or somebody is lying and that's not unusual but we don't exclude witnesses on the judge's own motion and keep them from the jury and we allow the jury to sort of but doesn't the prosecutor in the federal system how many duty to come forward and say in direct we're not going to leave that to the defense this guy gave this story in a three hour to have three pled guilty this guy gave a different story under oath when he was at the grand jury he's given this testimony and it's the prosecutor that is bringing out all the inconsistent statements and everything and then they can say because we brought it out and we presented this witness and you didn't we didn't vouch for him by the way we did the police agreement we didn't valves to tell the jury some federal judge has continued this when it was the government itself that continued that and that's the federal judge that's watching when they're doing all of those things to lead credence there and then we're speaking and hiding because now we're going to rely on the ability of the process of the defendants to come forward i submit to you that it's the government and the prosecutor that has to do all of those things and they're directly examination and leave it to the jury then to judge credibility but when they hide it i heard you make two different arguments one was that the prosecution here failed to come forward and point out the second was that the judge should have excluded mr peterson making both of those arguments by making both and the judge picked up on that and he says i'm going to strike his testimony i have found him to be a person who is not worthy of being in a witness in this case that he  how to tell the truth and he doesn't have the moral fiber that's there what happened then is the prosecutors as well let's give it a different type of jury instruction other than the one that comes out of the ninth circuit panel and what will bargain and w do that so we can still argue then when they get in their closing argument they say don't even consider peterson in their opening so then we say fine don't concern consider peterson and you don't have any testimony against my client from anyone else and the people that are in the bank that would know if money is being taken have exonerated my client says that he was not wrong so what happens is the prosecutor then gets up on rebuttal and says now you should consider peterson's they should have known that they were in a pickle when mr schreiber who they relied on in the grand jury to say mr lance was involved when they had mr tribe or say lance was not involved the prosecution mr allen was charged with they had a penalty of perjury to say that it was insured by the credit union association i did not stipulate that we didn't object it came in and what it did was the judge  at five o'clock this thing is dragging on here's what i'm going to do and the judge goes through a list and he admitted documents at five o'clock as soon as it came in an issue we moved to strike amendment the confrontation it's a constitutional issue and it's not there we move to strike we want paragraph four out of there now the government had every opportunity to say we want to reopen the case judge we want to call the havens back on the stand it correctly on the other things with with cagle and with the other institution we're going to rely on this and the judge says well you better get the original reserve then but this won't count against your time but testified differently in the past and he testified a different way at the trial was one place and i'm sorry i don't have the page number with me right now where he was asked on cross examination whether he had ever that during a deposition he had indeed said that he had used the money from the thank for that purpose and he said that i believe he had done it on two separate occasions it's the only instance where i can find where there was any admission of a lie testify falsely in the past they just never made any findings or any instruction to the jury that mr peterson lie during this trial and i think that his instructions are very clear he said wasn't settled at all or that it was only settled two years later so i truly do not understand the argument they never asked her to be marked as an exhibit it was never admitted during the trial or made a part of the record so asking this court to now make a finding that mr peterson committed perjury on the basis of a few questions to stryver that incorporates snippets of their testimony during the grand jury i think is an impossible task for this court to perform even if the record shows that there were prior inconsistent don't entirely understand help plea agreement of mr peterson it's proof that he committed perjury at trial was not objected to at all by mr  vigorously attack during closing argument and the court specifically instructed the jury on pages ten eighty six and ten eighty seven of the transcript to scrutinize peterson's testimony very very carefully in th don't recall that that occurred i mean that's the best that i can say i just from my review of the record i know that counsel can probably view as i know that i recall that there was some discussion of well we think that paragraph four and i remember reading it over the other night something that maybe there was a paragraph or should be struck and i remember some discussion about that but i don't remember exactly what the motion  well in some respects i think it's a and then graphs and they can the government that the night before it's going to the jury all of the sudden they're moving to strike a portion of an example that they stipulated to on the very first day trial in addition the defendants were not convicted of the same crimes mr peterson in fact was convicted of additional crimes so it's really impossible to try and equalize sentences between the two defendants as far as the there's no information in the record that somebody else related to the family or somebody unrelated to the family could not care for his daughter who this point is almost or is eighteen the last reason that the judge profit by approximately twenty six million dollars was around the corner but there isn't again nothing extraordinary about a defendant who's tines by a codefendant during the course of a conspiracy even if he was duped as to the gemstone deal he didn't peterson a con artist a scamp unbelievable repeatedly lies under oath manipulates the facts vince a truth and not only do we have a liar here as we might have or might suspect in a number of cases where co defendants or whatever being peterson manipulated our client to use his accounts in such a way but judge white conclusory remarks was mr peterson disorder distorts the criminal justice system and i don't think the government's coming here is one case of a witness this a pathological liar combined with everything else and ultimately a purge or whether we prove that perjury was commuter not just well i definitely found him to be a perjurer you know whether it was in this quarter or some other court and that i just went on the microphone so less than a minute mr  and then when the judge says this case is going through flowing admitted all kinds of those off of without being offered by the government our opportunity then was to say what do you did we see that this is different from theirs and we are striking it they had the opportunity they couldn't reopen it could have done other things so if you're going to say that we stipulated to subject matter jurisdiction which is a part it's also an element of the crime but it's subject have that dialogue we can't be subject to saying that we stipulate to something as important as this when we raise that and there is nothing to correct it on the record so it's probably before this court and we ask you to look