please the court and they have one minute rebuttal reserve on the judge yes let me start off by saying that there are no substantial individual questions on all three counts of conviction i'll start with the obstruction of justice count for a mystery sampson was convicted of section fifteen zero three obstruction of justice for witness tampering conduct that is outlawed by fifteen twelve not fifteen zero three the government improperly attempts to create two distinct elements relating to sampson state of mind specific intent and corrupt purpose to somehow cabin its witness tampering from arguments of corrupt purpose and sequester them off from the conviction in reality there is only one element relevant to his defendant's state of mind as set forth in quattrone wrongful intent or improper purpose to influence a proceeding if the defendant was using confidential information to bribe jurors for example he can only be prosecuted under zero three if the defendant was using confidential information to tamper with witnesses he can only be prosecuted under section fifteen twelve if one tries to simply get confidential information without wrongful intent there is no obstruction that is why the government argued sampson acted to impede the mortgage case by obtaining confidential information for the purpose of witness tampering in that case also the witnesses were paralegal and  number of factors in our papers that clearly show that but in addition to the fact there's listed in our papers that show no waiver let me just say on june twenty ninth two thousand and fifteen minute trial the government asked the court to end quote instruct the jury then authorized effort to obtain public information regarding the identities of cooperating witnesses constitutes an endeavor to obstruct justice close quote without reference to the purpose for which the information was saw therefore meant trial the government was asking the judge to sanction a theory that had nothing to do with witness tampering but was just based on trying to get confidential information now they say we should have known before trial that their theory was witness tampering when they didn't even know themselves in the trial they were espousing a totally different theory furthermore the second item sampson's conviction for falsely stating he did not recall the check register page i was improperly based on a literally true statement that's count nine the government ignores the critical evidentiary context in february two thousand and twelve sampson was given the original check register page ramadhan at the direction of the f b i i was original on blue checked paper with a watermark modded emphasized to sampson that the check register he had was the only version in existence in july two thousand and twelve the agent showed him a photocopy that was physically different than the original sampson had been given five months earlier to sampson it could not have been what he had seen information he may be able to recall close quote that was literally true given that the government had told sampson he got the only existing version of the check register page and that sampson had that version of i'm sorry he didn't deny he had ever seen it he said i don't have any recollection he said i have no recollection but let me check my files in fact he actually had the document because actually it is so he actually i have literally true that he had no recollection and it doesn't matter whether if he's if he's pretending i don't know what the theory was that went to the jury but if he's pretending not to have a recollection when he recollected perfectly well what happened that would not be literally true statement well except that he then goes on to say in the same statement let me check my files i might be able to tell you he had the other document in fact the other document the original that was given in february was brought back to the u s attorney's office long after the fed were the f b i interview so what he was saying was all literally true no one ever followed up to ask the next obvious question well let's look at your files what you have i mean there's no way an individual could look at that check register and know for sure it was the same one particularly when you're being shown a photocopy that looks physically different it has a lot of numbers on it that you have to remember how these things were were created there's just no way he would have known that and he was told by the government that he had the only one in existence that there were no copies so the obvious reaction would be i don't recall but i need to check my records you have to look at the one that he had compared as to count eleven sampson was convicted of falsely stating to the f b i that he did not ask any member of the senate staff to assist on the liquor store in a sales tax matter a substantial question here was issue was the refusal of the district court to admit into evidence contemporaneous notes of what sampson actually said as opposed to the agent's recollection first the contemporaneous notes the district court did not allow into evidence do not reflect simpson simpson making the statement for which he was convicted second agent jose's testimony created the folks impression that the question about staff assistance was directed at tax matters the contemporaneous notes of what sampson said in fact graphically show that these topics arose in two distinct sections of the interview also the court precluded me from cross examining on these subjects finally twenty five percent of the testimony at trial consisted of evidence upon which the government argued to the jury that sampson had committed a quid pro quo bribery and after the trial macdonald came down and it was clear that the evidence that was presented and which the government relied on was not bribery in the context of two thousand and fifteen in new york state there can be little question that this evidence unfairly prejudiced sampson and resulted in the three convictions why would it matter whether it was bribery as a matter of law particularly according to a supreme court case the didn't come down into later if this is evidence of motive wouldn't a politician be concerned to avoid an inquiry into something that at the time prosecutors and defense lawyers probably would have thought was bribery and that in any event would be significantly embarrassing to a politician to be disclosed i would agree with you until they were doing was arguing motive but what they were arguing repeatedly before the grand jury before the jury was that simpson committed bribery it was quid pro quo bribery was trying to tar mr sampson with a crime that was not charged in the indictment i would imagine that would be an objection that could be made whether it was primary or it wasn't we did make that objection but clearly it was not bribery and the government argued repeatedly it was bribery and that mr sampson was a corrupt politician not that he had a motive it was all based on arguing that he was a corrupt politician and was bribing people and that odd was bribing him base and there was no bribery charge the charges were obstruction of the investigation that's correct that's correct but it doesn't really make a difference the fact is they are arguing that mr sampson this is what they argue they argue that he address the issue of whether we argued to the jury that sampson had committed bribery as judge irizarry properly found the government was quite careful in its arguments to the jury we repeatedly argued that sampson was concerned about his possible commission bribery and about the quid pro quo relationship that he had with that imaad and that is the reason for the obstruction of justice and that argument was proper also in  fifteen sorry fifteen twelve b three charge which included as an element the commission of a possible felony additionally as the defense brought up the defense of entrapment we were properly allowed b ari to show predisposition predisposition evidence which also came in through evidence of the quid pro quo relationship between adam ondi and john sampson turning back to the fifteen zero three charge our theory to the jury if you look at the summation argument to the jury was that john sampson provided a false sense of security and the john sampson could deliver anything at a monitor needed with respect to the mortgage fraud case whether it was confidential information through his paralegal working at the u s attorney's office whether it was confidential information from corrupt lawyers that he was having represent possible coconspirators against whether it was having an f b i agent who had recently retired provide inside information from the with the f b i and the u s attorney's office this was the overarching corrupt purpose that lays the foundation to the fifteen or three conviction we also are properly argued that as evidence of this corrupt purpose in light of defense or repeated arguments that this case was about nothing more than background research which was completely proper john sampson had informed if necessary he would take out cooperated witnesses in the case so this was evidence a piece of evidence of the overarching corrupt intent to undermine the prosecution of the of the mortgage fraud cas to the false statement as to the check register page i think judge was quite precious in noting that the argument falls apart completely by the defense in light of john sampson statement when confronted by one force meant that he did not have a rock election that he would have to check his files if the question were truly understood as opposed to john sampson sampson that the agent was asking about that specific document the duplicate copy of the check register page john sampson statement that he would have to check his files makes absolutely no sense if you look at the context of the entire conversation first special agent hosey asks john sampson about whether john sampson had received any payments he asked him about individual escrow accounts connection without payment and then he showed him the check register page the copy the checkered history john sampson said i don't have a recollection off a check my files when pressed on it further he said i've never seen this before and i don't know what it is that was the false statement so it makes absolutely no sense for the defense to suggest that th questioning taken in the proper context was only about this photocopy of the check register page and that's what judge or is already found and rejecting the defendant's twenty nine argument and we would ask the court to adopt the same reasoning to the liquor store false statement conviction first of all the notes are entirely hearsay it's not entirely clear if you look at the notes that john sampson's denial that he had ever used a staff member to assist and that was entirely proper so mr ackerman was able to successfully elicit from ken hosey that there were two separate conversations or two separate portions of the conversation with john sampson pertaining to liquor is and i just don't remember i'm sorry his rating reporting date or is in gore's his report date is april twenty first  showed that mr sampson never said anything about asking his staff to do anything with respect to the tax matters they're relevant because they showed that when they finally started talking about tax matters and liquor store that if you look at these notes and you go to page one page to page three page four you see that these are so totally separated and then when agent hosey testifies he tries to make it look like they all happened at the same time he juxtaposes those two things if i had those notes and i could show them to the jury i'd rest assured that they would have never convicted him on this charge with respect to the false statement about the duplicate there's no question that mr mr sampson never said he had never seen it before he said he didn't recall and you have to check is records it was that simple again mr solomon doesn't even mention the fact that it was the government that told him he had the only copy of the check register page in existence how could you expect somebody who thought they had the only page in existence to say that's the same one that i was given five months before the government was an undercover operative some kind right to do that but the government told them what to say and then they had a miscount that i understand that but once you know that it's a cheat once you know because the is the government asking you about it you no longer believe that this was the only copy you think good grief they've got another copy this was all the sound up right why isn't that a reasonable thing for the jury to conclude because there's no way you would necessarily know that it was the same copy it physically was different it was a larger argument than the argument that he was told that was the only copy he was told that was the only copy by somebody that once the agent is interviewing him about it he realized it was lying to him all not necessarily because he didn't know that was the same same check register page was shown before that's a different issue that's it that's based solely on it looks different that's not based on some notion that the government told him that it was the only copy and then they show him something and he thinks oh well i know it can't be right because i have the only copy and he doesn't know any such thing that he  reason at that point to understand that the guy who told him it was the only copy was lying to him not necessarily his ears know what that check register was he doesn't know if it's the same or and that's the problem he doesn't know if i understand that is what is the problem is  thank you thanks very much thank you both we'll reserve decision but we'll get you an answer very shortly