please the court my name is bruce locke and i'm here representing mr vance i was here on wednesday complaining that the government was putting on evidence in the case putting in evidence that they shouldn't put it and i'm here now complaining that the government didn't give us didn't give the defense counsel information that it should have given prior to the trial in this case the issue in this case was mr spence testified that he ran a company the company had a pension plan the pension plan was at a bank invested in a bank the bank was paying two percent interest on the pension fund his pound came to him mr peters came to him and said you could invest that pension beginning but a kind of deal with the government to testify against mr vance testified that that transaction occurred but that he told mr vance at the beginning that the transaction who said no i told mr benson prime that what we were doing was illegal the information that was withheld from the defense was that at about the time this transaction was going on mr peterson testified in front of a federal grand jury in sacramento that was investigating a tax fraud scheme the tax fraud scheme involved and mr chappell mr goodrich and mr gaskell who w convicted of tax fraud and it was a foreign trust scheme it was a scheme where doctors are highly paid people what their business and what the money goes funneling through foreign trusts and theoretically comes back tax free mr peterson his grand jury testimony testified that he prepared tax returns for dr pick and dr hoffer in which those gentlem earned between three and four hundred thousand dollars and the tax returns reflected that there was no taxable income in fact one of the doctors actually claimed an earned income credit back from the government mr testified in his grand jury testimony that the reason he got involved in that scheme was because he was trying to build up his practice he wanted to generate more clients and he thought he could get clients referred to me by gaskell goodrich and  returns that the trial of gaskell goodrich in chapel the government relied on tax returns of three doctors dr p x dr hoffer and another doctor those were the basis of the case that resulted in the conviction of those three people mr peters was not prosecuted nor were the doctors who filed their returns they weren't prosecuted either  informant of the time comparison and the returns that he prepared for the doctors were nine hundred ninety five returns so that would have been prepared in ninety six but he testified in the grand jury that he started working for the doctors in mid ninety five the transaction here takes place in gate row of nine april may of ninety five so he's doing the work on this the back and through for my slater he's working for these other individuals and then later on everybody year later probably april or may of ninety six he prepares the ninety five return participation in a tax fraud scheme shows that you're a liar and i think and that's clearly impeachment of mr peterson it could have been brought out in the trial if we'd known about it the in addition testif that his motive in the tax case was to generate more clients he is the arthur andersen of a one man practice he's you know if you do stuff or you know you get things going for clients that they can't get done any other way you get to earn more money and that's that's what he was doing was there any other testimony in the vince trial of heaters being aware i mean about vince being aware of the evader or he had clients who participated in this trust scheme that turned out to be a tax fraud well he prepared their tax returns and you can't be you could not prepare those tax returns without being criminally liable to big long jump from saying  and to testimony that included statements by him that he relied upon the tax attorney he had his own doubts about the scheme and tried to do some research ultimately relied upon a tax attorney and i have no doubt that there's some some black reading the new motion assumes that this evidence is that impeaching you cannot one could not prepare a tax return for a doctor that's making between three and one hundred thousand dollars an claim an earned income credit on it or have zero tax liability and claim that one is acting legally it is impossible you can't get there and certainly not through this tax scheme judge will asked me will you argue it in good richard's case that somebody could believe that well i represent a good rich and at that point that's what is his defense but the jury clearly found that you couldn't believe it of his argument this morning clear that argument finds no support in the record but through mr benn's as testimony there is no evidentiary there are no documents supporting that theory and there is a lot of  chan said that he testified on categorically that he never said he was going to loan mr benz two hundred forty seven thousand dollars nor that he was going to invest that amount of money in some kind of investment mr atkins the controller of the company testified that he had conversations with mr benz asking for an accounting of where did this two hundred forty seven thousand dollars came from and mr bands always it was  had knowledge of the scheme mr peters had half of the picture mr chappelle knew that that money was generated in the united states was going offshore was being transferred around from place to place and then magically came back on shore mr peters didn't have that full picture at least there's nothing in the record to suggest he did and he denied it in the grand jury that he realized what was going on he had to do over again i wish it had been disclosed upfront because i think we could have argued this you know motion in limine rather the in this court i think in the final analysis what would have happened is that judge corral would have looked at this would have examined the matter and the rules for a for b and associated rules and he would have said this goes too far afield i think there's a greater likelihood this would or would not occur in the future if we affirm or reversed well i know that works how do we get prosecutors to do this to look at something and say you know this may be close but it's close enough to brady that i'm going to give it to them and maybe i can keep it out maybe it produces some cross examination but i'd rather do that then stand in court room one in san francisco in front of the ninth circuit didn't have a very good understanding of the gaskill chapelle case at the time it was my case in fact i came into this case the bench case only as a trial attorney and i looked at  that transcript mr peter seemed to know nothing about nothing most of the transcript dealt with his rendition of documents that came into his possession through other sources that he did not generate  tax return for positions correct who earned three to four hundred thousand a year what was what amount of taxes that these people pay i don't know the answer to that question i thought it was mr peters is not the one who profited from this and and this is a point i raised in my brief this scheme never got off the ground mr dr chan gave that money back immediately at that point there was no longer any motive for mr peters to keep up this charade and keep trying to convince mr gans that this was in fact some kind of loan back situation so it's hard to understand the defense theory under any circumstances but in this case there was a lot of other crowd waiting information that mr ganns was robbing the pension fund well before mr peterson even came into the picture with a two hundred forty this will be my last point that i know the court is aware of here are those corporate minutes there signed by the three partners two of the three say it's absolutely and it has to be fraud because that two hundred forty seven thousand dollars figure didn't become available for another six week