yourself just said that intent was the main issue and that it was vigorously disputed circle both of these pieces of evidence pertain to a rational jur analysis of intent if there has been fraud in the past it isn't it isn't possible to say well this one it's less possible to say that this one is so i'm normal steadily starting with the norm stanley testimony i see that testimony sort of in two parts there is the part about hey i did seven hundred thousand dollars to mr materials the the three evils company did not exist at that time there wasn't there wasn't testimony about what happened manson creek in british columbia and so i feel that is in part it's background information and then it is in her winding mation that would be quite legitimate or and of course even if we might have said well i would or wouldn't let it in the ellis from three eagles the also what was testified to by his son matthew proudfoot daniel proudfoot and very proud for himself and his as he seemed testimony which is in there they all said there were these five thousand dollar payments that were made the children said you cannot be paying him he is not at the regal's investor and the money these five thousand dollars payments can't go to him and so nora steadily not an investor for three eagles and the risk there is significant testimony about the five thousand dollars payments and the government was saying hey that was our and we needed to show these five thousand dollar under a world three analysis and i think it also shows that the true purpose was was not the intertwined aspect of the one thousand dollars the true purpose was these seven hundred thousand dollars i happened was mr delhi made a seven hundred thousand dollars investment in a prior night in order to work as a shop and they couldn't pay him and he wanted his money back and so what did harry do harry said well why don't you come on that's what harry was getting in the interest payment and i don't know why he put me on that i didn't do anything on the board but this is all part of the lowly because what mr probably didn't need was a reprice or and sixty six dollars and the updated one i believe is in the s t r forty five and they spend about three hundred and fifty thousand dollars the government never disputed it three hundred and fifty thousand dollars in different mining that operations during that four year period during that same four year period they paid themselves over eight one hundred thousand dollars in salary and then paid separately from salary because they know there was a lot of argued about well the jury burnt out and said that the investors bought legitimate salary was ok mean i think one thing to remember in this record is judge seidlin had a rare opportunity for a trial judge because this case was tried st a st time but there was a mistrial because the defense counsel was total testimony for the two of them was it up thirty three minutes on a day where the jury heard over five how hours of testimony and there were five and five hour days of testimony twelve total victims eighteen total august two thousand and ten telling them that servers were almost they are almost in production and investor sent another ten thousand dollars but we find out that there's no production going on in fact a year later there's one thousand five hundred dollars in the bank and they're under c investigation and they're still seeking investors that's the evidence that the jury relied on and we know the drill apparently because they actually hung on one of the money laundering counts involving a vehicle that was purchased because that vehicle was used one time for the business and so the jury but you know what maybe that one is actually you know hey purchase we ended up dismissing that but so this notion that they focused on thirty minutes of testimony and ignored everything else that was presented just isn't borne out by the record and that's not there's no there's a fair surance that this verdict was based on the evidence and the evidence of fraud was overwhelming there is restitution issue i think that's a factual question what did the judge made a determination the norms to delhi had been hold and by harry promptly into the three goals i think the last player i submitted twenty eight a letter on monday were guarding the fact that this court has made it clear that restitution is a cat