instructions kept counsel it struck me that there were two possible courses here and i'm wondering if you're saying one is out the other is and the one that i that's kind of playing to me is getting the that no truck will take it but by low balling you gets all these two hundred dollar deposits and then the thing that struck me as a really clear statement is this ninety eight percent of the time we succeeded shipping your car in a reasonable time when actually it's only sixty two percent are you saying the first one is out because so the theory that was given to the jury but the second one is and i'm saying your honor that actually the first one being th is no industry standard the only thing that determines whether a car can be moved it's a fact whether it's moved so we introduce repeatedly at every count including every kind of conviction we showed the car after car after car that defraud that's an element of that theory and then additional element that's required for every kind of conviction is an additional fault statement that the jury unanimously agreed to so they had to have both now the jury would not have to specifically identify what they signed it he understood the written contract so that two percent it only appeared as far as we could see all the evidence we do every single internet ad that we had that only appeared in one in late november  a two percent failure rate in most areas and there was absolutely no evidence of what its value weight was in most areas if we look at how they drive the failure rate in this is this is what i want to get at if you look at where they were the government came up with a failure rate first of all he operated his business from march of two thousand i was the test in march of two thousand the government showed nothing that happened that nothing happened thousand  agreed to this contract so material false statement has got to be a statement that uses someone to part from money and you couldn't part from money specifically it was specifically addressed by mr sutherland in his contract year the contract the contract say with security sales there's always a prospectus and it says this is a policy statements and nothing else you've heard outside this prospectus counts and don't invest your this contract and everybody got the same contract it was not drafted by lawyer you're right it wasn't as locked solid as securities perspective for determining whether mr sutherland having to defraud you have to look at  contract and the fact that he required everybody to sign the contract and the fact that he posted mr sholes car he posted mr love on television car he posted everybody's car and normally post it they followed it up the not false now the government introduced incomplete inaccurate which i fully briefed statements by a computer expert who went over all everything else but when you looked at the government's own case agent testify in the case they did show an there are fifty two separate orders in the agent's testimony that were canceled by the customer before the car was even scheduled to be picked up so that's not fraud that can't be fraud he necessary how that relates to the failure rate and how many successful transports six thousand two hundred i believe you can't be given a tracking number if your order hasn't been placed so the order so it was actually true if it had been made which it hadn't it would have been true had it been made because he was giving a tracking number for his car which is so mr sutherland had moved in fact i believe it was excerpts of record one seventy two he had moved this number of cars from the same location added below that price so it wasn't a lowball price it wasn't he'd move cars before and it couldn't move then he'd say aha let's just up the price that's not what happened he gave the discount price that was clearly related it said specifically time is not important if you pick this one the next one the middle range that rate was two hundred dollars more that one was for the customers if you want if you had to have time it was important pick that rate so what happened if a customer picked the low rate ok if a customer picked the low rate and the car didn't move mr sutherland said as he said in his contract you can always upgrade with an additional two hundred dollars and every cent of that upgrade went to the trucker not to mr sutherland but if he knew that there was no way that car was ever going to move at the low vulnerable milk prices if the government had proved with any evidence and i'm talking any evidence that he knew that then that would be fraud if the government had proved that he knew he couldn't move this car and he still took that person's money that would be fraud absolutely but there's not even a shred of evidence that he knew that it was ever told that by anybody he moved six thousand two hundred cars or  be brokered to move the six thousand two hundred cars he's moving cars being a businessman that has a little bit too much more than his business can bite off doesn't make it fraud what makes the fraud is that he's got of want to do exactly what you just said he's go say that customer give me your money i know we're not going to move your car that's for on every single term versus the guy who tried to move their car every single car was posted and that's the way every broker does business their own expert says it would have to be an absolute knowledge if he was we usually inclined to know that most likely the customer is going to be left with the situation of having to upgrade or forfeit their two hundred dollars ross that's exactly right if he felt that there was most likely a chance that that that customer is going to be outs out to lunch now i'm not good at which is what they charge the guy which is what they didn't show at trial because they didn't show that what happened is that as his business grew he got new employees the employees that the poison dealt with mr show he actually identified her his testimony molly molly testified molly said we tried to move every single car we posted every single car molly i was on the phone all the time with truckers to try to move these things it wasn't an effort to defraud people it didn't move it didn't move and in fact mr scholz the evidence mr sholes shows actually his form the form is in the record of the posting of his car that's not statement for the united states and i would like to first address some of the facts discussed by defense counsel first of all he pointed out that a customer cannot be given a tracking number unless the order was placed in system and that's not true when a customer enters information into the sutherland system he's given a tracking number that does not mean that the car move was placed in the database on the computer run by central dispatch so absolutely nothing can be done to the car until it's placed in central dispatch just because the card was placed in the defendant's database doesn't mean any work was done in addition the six hundred thirty two cancellations the defense counsel was talking were nine hundred eighty one vehicles just for the one year period that were not moved were customers paid money and gotten absolutely no refund and so the computer records can't count so i'm a little lost on something involving the numbers and  i'm afraid it matters that nine hundred eighty one cars were not moved when during the one year period from about november two thousand and two through i believe or december two thousand and two through november of two thousand it was about a one year period covering two thousand ok how many cars were moved during that period about two thousand and other words one thousand were not moved and about two thousand were move thousand i believe defense counsel was talking about was for the two year period and i'd like to point out that the two thousand that were moved almost none of them moved within the promised time period the testimony from the employees was that about ninety percent of the vehicles were not moved on time and many of those sat for months and months and months and one even sat for a year with no money refunded so that there are these one thousand people that had moved and were waiting for their vehicles and they needed their vehicles and they were out money and they were out their cars and not one of these customers not one of the three thousand customers would have contracted with the defendant to move their cars if they had known the truth they relied on the ninety five percent and by the way defense counsel pointed out that there was something about one e mail that referred to a ninety eight or a two percent fail rate and actually the defendant personally told roger gross that very rarely do we go outside ten days the employees and the defendant over and over and over said that this was the cars would be moved within seven to ten days in many of the advertisements and many of the e mails which were moved into evidence the defendants papers said that the date of pickup is performed in ninety five percent of orders in responses to the better business bureau over and over and over i believe there were about three hundred responses the better business bureau  the defendant reiterated we have a two percent fail rate and he also said that there were relatively few complaints so this permeated his business was he was explaining to the customers  almost always on time and that could have been further from the truth he was almost ninety percent of the time not on time and or not a third of the cases never even move cars that have to everybody's money i would also like to point out that the law does not require that the jury be unanimous as to any one false statement and this is this court in july of this year in united states versus lyon said that the jury need not be unanimous on any false statement and even discussed whether or not scheme to defraud and attain money were two separate crimes it's actually one crime and the council or one of the consequences for the court reviewing this so the decision of the jurors findings with respect to those three false statements i'm sorry on what are the consequences of the three false statements of the jury found for purposes of review we can look at those three false statements to decide whether or not they were false we could do that but i think we can also look at the bigger record because the jury did not need to decide on one specific false statement we could look at all the false statements all right but they did decide so what we did was they did but we shouldn't be limited to those three but let's discuss those three percent of fail rate false they were referring to exhibit four point one  we have and i'm reading from the exhibit we have a great on time record of them deliveries superior performance with a fail rate of two percent or less in most areas and the evidence was clear either the two percent feel right referred to on time performance or it referred to letter not in with the cards at all and both would have been false we had the computer records show that thirty eight percent of the time cars were not moved at all and  so that certainly wouldn't be a two percent fail rate in regards to moving vehicles as to whether or not there was a two percent fail rate to moving on time the computer records show oh sorry even finish your answer and then i have a question o vehicles were not moved on time so either way you look at it the feel rate was not two percent and there's no way that the jury could have found that in most in most areas there was a two percent fail rate the numbers were just so huge fell right numbers were so huge that it doesn't matter if he said in most areas or not either way the two percent fail rate was false council you said thirty eight percent fail rate plaintiff's lawyer said it's too complicated for us to figure out but he gave us some numbers that amount to a nine percent fail rate can you account for the difference between your thirty eight percent and his nine percent the defense counsel  referring to the boxes of cancelled orders and that we quired that the defendant and his employees took the files on cancelled orders when a customer called and cancelled and removed it from the paper from the plastic  from the area where they kept the pending orders and put it in the castle the order files that first of all requires that that they were doing their jobs and actually moving the paperwork the computer records were accurate as far as we know they were the defendant's computer records and counted for every vehicle and according to the defendant's own computer records it was one thirty or thirty eight percent of the vehicles were never moved and that gave the defendant from november through when the business was shut down in january i believe at least forty five days to have moved all those vehicles so the defense counsel argues well the government shut the business down but we didn't take the records all the way up until the date the business was shut down we looked at the records only through november giving the defendant about forty five days i believe to get the vehicles moved certainly plenty of time to move a vehicle that he estimates would be moved in seven to ten days how much of your answer to you thanks that  for the jury's finding of a two percent false representation could be sustained the government would have to prove to the jury that the defendant knew the difference and intended to defraud regardless of the variance right i mean nine percent would get tougher we would have and but in this case because we had thirty eight percent of cars that never got moved and people never got refunds and many of them lost twelve hundred dollars or however much they paid in full they lost the full amount and the cars were addition to that we had ninety percent of people whose vehicles were not moved on time sometimes sitting for months and months and the stories that were told by these victims of trial were just horrendous they needed their cars they had to make other arrangements they made phone call after phone call after phone call they were hung up on they were cursed out by the defendant their stories these people would not contact if the senate if they had known the truth that he didn't care if the vehicles got moved or not rephrase that i could see where it could be a lawful non for arsenal in business if you advertised for two hundred bucks i will put your name on a computer database that carriers use to look for cars to ship and that you may score you may not that it be a legitimate business even if most people didn't score carrier and i think people do that for less than a full truckload shipment but here i gather his assurances to the customers were much more than that so really wouldn't do just to take two hundred dollars put it on the database and do nothing more if i got your theory right that's exactly right and if i may point out in regards to the contract the defense attorney talks about contract quite a bit in the contract doesn't say that these numbers aren't true what the contract says is that these are approximations seventeen days or approximate and that there are no guarantees and approximate doesn't mean you know way off base approximate means seven to ten days or thereabouts  it doesn't mean thirty days or sixty seven to ten days and no guarantees it doesn't mean that if we don't do anything with your car car doesn't get moved up no guarantees means we'll do our very best but we can't guarantee so the contract didn't clear anything up for these customers when the customer signed the contract and sent in the money they certainly expected performance i want to turn the other two findings i'm sorry the other two findings when the jury ok where we started already began working in his order and if  season and as long as encompassed within that scheme there is a false statement to somebody that's good enough and then we have a mailing and in this case the false statement already began working his order and if you didn't pay they would send to collections was made to may chan and that's on page seven thirty one of the transcript jill the cult of the employee was explaining the e mails back and forth from a chan and she's explaining that ma chen was threatened with collections if she didn't send money and she was told in that e mail that we have already begun working your order until the ketchup caldicott testified to the jury that that was false in fact we had done nothing on that order and we don't do anything on orders until we receive money so that was clearly a false statement that was made and then as to count ten it's basically the same statement said they had placed order to move his car when they had not and  defraud it was identified and i will point out that stephen vantage also was the recipient of one of those e mails and one of those phone calls threatening him that if he didn't send money he would be sent to collections so the jury was correct in finding a false statement made in that regard as part of that that portion of the scheme to  the i'll go ahead and address loss amount of if i could help me help me with something i watched him out that was another question that i had for you i couldn't figure out the four hundred thousand dollars frankly i thought let's say there are fifty victims and they were all defrauded out of their two hundred dollars very very ten thousand dollars there were five hundred victims all the fraud it out of their two hundred dollars that would be one hundred thousand dollars how do you get it up to i think you got six hundred but you need four hundred for the sentence that he got how do you get it up there he his computer see where it went to his his because many people didn't just lose two hundred dollars many many of these people sent full amount of money and didn't get refund won't wait and wait a minute the computer system the reference to that that in the brief didn't help me at all and i need to know what the computer system s and most of the time as if i understand the business correctly if they send say six hundred eighty five dollars two hundred dollars or four hundred dollars goes to sutherland and the rest of the money dollars for people whose cars were not moved so that wasn't a trucker that if that kept all the money and the judge made it in his rule thirty two cents in order that it was the evidence was polluted that the defendant  the victims victims of this crime lost six hundred thousand dollars and that was based on restraint are you are you saying that this is people the carrier comes through or at least the customer is told the carriers come through with a bid for say seven hundred dollars so the customer's already paid two hundred dollars to sutherland the sense of what another five hundred so they're linking it's all seven hundred dollars on the car never gets moved correct and that's it's up to the six hundred thousand that's that's my understanding at this time that that's been my understanding that the computer expert testified that the computer system showed how much money was received she then looked at which orders were not completed and what money was not refunded and the total amount of that for people whose cars have not been moved was six hundred four thousand dollars offer money that was paid just another one of the cars that were not moved correct now part of that was right at the end when his business was shut down so we did not include any of the vehicles that were where orders were placed after november sometime in november and that would have given the defendant at least forty five days to move vehicles and so he would have forty five days to move the vehicles the vehicles hadn't been moved and by the way the government never shut the business down the defendant was arrested and we took files but that didn't prevent them from getting those vehicles moved those vehicles were still listed on central dispatch his wife was not in we use the data regressed as a cutoff i don't think we would remove i don't think we would reduce it at all because the defendant kept that money no refunds were given i'd also like to point out the restitution amount ordered was only twenty seven thousand dollars and the reason for that for whatever reason that the judge brown took the two hundred dollars and multiplied by that that by the number of people that had submitted signed restitution requests signed on penalty of perjury one hundred restitution requests so he did not order restitution for all the money to all the victims just to the people who had returned restitution requests and then only the two hundred dollars a lot of fun to put a positive amount not the full amount that they had requested so there was a large difference that's what accounts for the difference doesn't the government have a duty to seek restitution for the other people who paid money but their cars didn't get moved the problem is identifying who those people were so what we did was we took the list of customers and we mailed out  being the victim witness office mailed out victim make impact statements and restitution requests to all the victims that we were aware of and and the people that signed under penalty of perjury how much they saying well we can only find twenty seven thousand dollars worth of loss actually does far outweigh hard loss that people are willing to sign on or penalty of perjury it does seem that way and that's why i wanted to bring this up because although the computer system to give us an overall amount of money that was taken in and that he didn't refund part of what i moved we don't know exactly what we've got numbers we don't can't examine so whenever you say computer system to me it sounds like  computer just computers don't do anything except the very simplest counting to two actually zero to one this is far as they get and the woman a testified wasn't an accountant she was somebody that knew something about computers and so the fact that she says what she thinks when her opinion is is that the bottom line on the account doesn't have that much force i need more explanation just just like judge thomas and judge larson the difference between the twenty seven in the six hundred four ok we the the defendant's records which were kept sort on his computer showed how many people had paid money and how how many cars were actually moved we could see how many cars were not moved and so from that information we were able to determine and prove to the jury and to the judge he found clearly by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had kept six hundred some thousand dollars from people whose vehicles were not moved but when it comes down to figuring out who to give a restitution order to we need specific name of a specific person and a specific dollar amount that's a little harder to do and that's why we sent out the restitution request with the victim impact statements so we would know how much money to give each person and how many how many of those did you send and last i believe there were you know i don't recall offhand how many were sent out but i believe it was  individuals who are identified by name and determining how much money they had contributed determine that they had not received any benefit for their payment and that's how you came up with the six hundred thousand  results that she was able to give to us did not break it down by name or amount she was able to look globally at the total amount of money that was paid because we're not moved into that global by adding up all the individual payments  receive correct the we did not know we had a database where you could run a computer program to add up all the money but we didn't have this input into that computer database where did that come from the defendant and his employees and they would provide individual or over the internet from a customer and so we would have order numbers but basically what you were doing was approximating from the revenue received i mean when you when you drain all of it away and then it's not that you call a computer database or whatever but if you just take you're just running a formula or you're you're asked best estimate on the i'd like you to explain to me without using the word computer what that six hundred four thousand dollars represents these i mean i am not going to rely on you telling me what somebody who's not an accountant but knows how to use computers says was the amount taken from customers i want you to explain to me just how this money number was arrived at without using the word computer the whether it was a computer or not it was the defendant's records and we have to i'm not a computer expert the jury you don't have to be a computer expert nobody has to be a computer expert you just have to tell me one way to do it is mrs smith paid in seven hundred dollars to get her car moved her car was never moved for a loss of seven hundred dollars there are a whole lot of other people just like mrs smith and when you add up all the numbers in that column it comes to six hundred forced out that's another way to do it would be you take all the revenue the came in you subtract all the money that went to carriers and you have six hundred four thousand dollars left over and you say how do you get that six hundred four thousand dollars left over is it all the two hundred dollars are there enough customers for that to be the sum of all the two hundred dollars or is it something else and if it's something else what is the something else saying grafters computers you're here to tell me you have no idea but you're sure that if i did all the work that somebody else might have done that i would agree with you that that's the number actually not we went to great detail with  gave we looked at all the money that was paid by all the customers for vehicles that were not moved and if the defendant did not reach give refunds and that total came to over six hundred thousand dollars and that's corroborated by  the thirty eight percent four thousand vehicles basically two hundred dollars two hundred thousand dollars and that assumes that only that the customer's only lost the two hundred dollars that they paid which wasn't true many of the people  city take a look at and if you if you don't know the answer this question just tell us you don't know but do you know how those numbers were actually put together what the what was looked at if you want to use that pas many people paid money to the defendant to have the cars move they were not moved and didn't get a refund and then totaled up that money and the total came to six hundred thousand dollars i still can't figure out the twenty seven thousand dollar restitution if that's the way the number would be right that's my best guess i can't imagine people would just say i here's a letter saying i may be able to get my seven hundred dollars back i don't care throw it in the trash i don't think that many people would do that and the best explanation i can figure out is either the twenty seven is wrong but the six hundred four is wrong or the government mailed out its notice to the old aggression stead of the new address the twenty six i just can't make sense  twenty seven thousand people who had their cars moved typically it's because they're moving so their old address is no good anymore and they've got a new address that the twenty seven thousand is the wrong the restitution amount should have been more like and sort of been about a million dollars because over the two year period that's how much money the defendant took from people for not moving cars for lost some out purposes the judge only looked at the one year period well he took as i said if i read his order  just took two hundred two hundred dollars for deposit multiply by the number of customers multiplied by the number of people who submitted last decorations for restitution for loss amount it should have been for the one you're probably right about the was over four hundred thousand dollars and that the use of mail included intended customers the the six hundred four thousand dollars that we put into evidence to trial and that the judge relied on was not two hundred dollars times three thousand customers  this is extraordinarily frustrating because this is exactly what i had to do a trial exactly what i had to do the district court counsel said to you just like you said to the court the computer records were accurate but it's totally completely false the computer person testified to she took a computer program that the person who just signed the program testified was in accurate she took that program and when somebody it was an order placed by joe smith to move a car if joe smith pressed the computer button three times the computer system reflected that joe smith paid his deposit three times he did not joshi with may not have paid any money the computer system only showed if somebody pressed the button on the computer that's all it showed period it didn't show any standard of review tell us why you think we should reverse this the mouth of the law first loss of mountain and start with a loss you know the last must be attributable to criminal conduct it is not criminal under any law or facts to accept a nonrefundable processing fee period the last amount included by the court included non refundable deposits from people whose cars were moved so that is not criminal conduct period counsel has indicated that there's this timing thing that somehow cars took ages to move the phrase but what counsel specifically instructed his expert was to use as the date the date the person went on the computer not the date the car was to be picked up so every single car would be late under his coffee list so time is nothing to do with it so what is your what loss amounted to tender refresh my last amount your honor the crime here was fraud by the use of false statements that's what we went to trial and that's what the case is all about to this date i have seen one person one person mr schol who can point to what he says is a false statement and an amount attributable that statement i do not have one other person and the government has not shown one other person that they can link to a false statement as i indicated your honor the statement to mr show was in late november of zero three all of the previous ads all of the previous internet appropriate for the last if the law if he actually went in this i think if your honest question back was knowing he was going to move cars let's say he did made any effort just just taken people's money right and left ok and that was his business it isn't but if that was his business then what's a loss would be is the loss that he has the money that the customers pay him that they didn't get back ok and in this particular case what we have is which the government completely ignores is we have his independent accounting of the money that came in and where it went you know this whole computer thing is intended to be deceptive it is what we have in the record all the money that came to us and where it went when it went to truckers when it didn't go to truckers so so in that sense what the y i want to say one sixty seven for example it specifically says in the income statement trucker payments one million dollars or nine hundred ninety nine thousand one hundred one dollars so there it's out there and you've done a calculation no i didn't  got the government's first restitution numbers ok when you say a victim i think just fine felt said somebody has moved his cars maybe they changed address we had somebody who sent in a claim was a victim for three hundred thousand dollars that the probation and the government submitted to the cour we have in the record and i look for it but i couldn't find it here i could certainly find it but we have on the record our complaints to the better business bureau ok now these are complaints that he knew about so these are things that we can actually show  about now the vast bulk of them and i'm talking two thirds to three quarters of them occurred after his business was shut down because they couldn't contact him there's no phones he's in jail there's nothing they could do but if you get a number which is in there which is in the transcript of the number of better business complaints that occurred in two thousand and three before his business was shut down we get that number and we and we and that's the number we use these are people who complain of some of these people complain  at least to me at all helpful i mean a tiny tiny minority of people who've been dealt with abusively by businesses complained to the better business bureau my gosh i never have in my life and i don't even know if they have a local address so what it would seem useful to me ok would be for you to tell us how much money sutherland collected from customers and how much he sent out to carriers over relevant periods of time ok in two thousand and two and i'm sure you must know that i mean it's so obvious i assume i have it right here two thousand and two it's one sixty seven of the are ok the income was one million six hundred fifty six thousand three hundred thirty dollars that was income buys independent accounting for that year ok customer refund the amount refunded to the customers was twenty thousand one hundred eighty three she already subtracted away we had a total sales of one million six hundred thirty six thousand one hundred forty seven we subtract from that what your honor just  trucker payments nine hundred ninety nine thousand one hundred one dollars that leaves a gross profit of two thousand and two of six hundred thirty seven thousand forty seven dollars then on the very next page which is c r one sixty eight she she breaks down where that money went salaries and expenses advertising everything else his expenses for the business that year were five hundred eleven thousand eight hundred eighty seven dollars his net income for the entire two thousand and two year was one hundred twenty five thousand one hundred sixty dollars so those numbers are all there now this is keep in mind that we had a one point two percent refund rate in two thousand and two so he got what i just read to you in may count testified in may of zero three so when he when he sent the one was to customers from fraud could be i suppose would be the whole thing in the best they could they would be zero for the last must be somewhere in between is that right if in fact or or no loss because it must be triple the criminal conduct that's very right right if it's if you could if some of this is attributable to criminal conduct and not just someone paying the two hundred dollars which they agreed to then yes it's for that that year it's got to be if there is if there was criminal conduct in that year which is been no indication that there was if there was any criminal conduct in that year that somewhere less than that figure for two thousand and two and they have the same records going to turn in tion say for just a few pounds yeah i would your honor because that's probably the most frustrating thing about this whole thing is that i certainly understand the jury reached a verdict that they did i mean i understand they found him guilty of three count s but i can only do a trial what any lawyer can do which is try to defend the charges and the government's prosecution and the government prosecuted this case as  government tried to come up with other theories a false statements in the closing argument the government the jury did not find one single one of those to be false zero so what we're left with is a jury voted where we asked for a special verdict because special verdict is because it was impossible impossible for me to understand how a jury could find a false statement when there had been proof of a false statement so they did it and they specifically identified it and that's the law we spent a lot of time on percentages and we spent a lot of times on everything else but the actual false statement identified by the jury was less than two percent failure rate in most areas we can't just ignore the whole was made there was any intention to fraud at the time that statement was made or that i just there which isn't ok but that's statement was not false and the government can't show that this court can't find it no one can find it because it's simply not a false statement as far as we know there was absolutely no evidence he moved trucks from new york to l a from every plate of the country to some other part of the country ok what that statement  anybody any rational reasonable human being is exactly a frankly it's exactly what he said mr siegel as he testified to this he said i would if i had gotten my money back which he didn't because the business when i'm going to let you have the money that's the reason and the fraud getting his money back is the tail end of the business but he said if i can get mine if i got my money back i just would have assumed that i was in the two percent i was upstate new york near syracuse in the winter time and there's been no evidence at all as to what the failure rate was in most areas ok counselor can i ask one more for the first and i'm really sorry about this but it's just that's why we're maybe important to me and i was thinking about these two thousand and two numbers and i'm thinking of sutherland can't make money out of what he pays the truckers like that getting kickbacks and that's not the case at all no one suggested that the only way you can make money is out of the two hundred dollars people given the place the orders or the occasional four hundred dollars or more when they wanted expedited knowing what they wanted i should make it clear he doesn't make any money off the four hundred dollars only the two hundred he doesn't even know wanted to have a few hundred dollars processing fee ok that makes it even simpler then his gross profit of six hundred thirty seven thousand forty seven dollars in two thousand  requires three thousand seven hundred eighty five customers in two thousand and two that he had three thousand seven hundred eighty five customers in two thousand two yes yes he moved six thousand cars in two and a half years he went obviously the business got better and zero two and better no three so yes he had that many people that he moved their cars he moved those people cars and that that's where the money went and i should indicate your honor that of those people despite what the government says ok those people were happy because their cars moved but those exact same people that we just talked about the people who successfully had their cars moved who agreed to the processing fee of two hundred dollars were all included in the courts lost they do every single one of them that's not going to go thank you