background because the same shifted pretty significantly this past friday so i did spend in file two motions in limine and to prevent his eleven year old false statement  did for the record that a court never ruled on this issue the government crossed the defendant with those prior years without objection this is where things stood until friday afternoon when the government which says even though the court didn't make that particular finding on the record we can tell from the facts and circumstances that the judge did talk about than the judge in the issuing appropriate wa which included that it was a one on one credibility contests between the oh great as in the defendant the written this is prior criminal history had come into evidence after the answer is made because you wouldn't be if the way the rule works is even though this is the type of evidence that if there is a finding can be admitted it can't be in the mid in the rollbacks six are not knowing comes into play when someone testifies at trial the government says well the car isn't all that similar to the instant charges without it's outrageous because the government goes through these steps of planning the defendant to confirm that the tax returns he's accused of lying on all containing a statement that they're signed on your hands and penalties of predatory and cries and she did elicits from the defendant that that means you have to be honest and then the prosecutor in the was that this money didn't have to be declared by the defendant because it was a loan and even the government stated you know if you believe if you government's response is that the defendant was aware that his taxes were being investigated if price assume that the record provided a substantial maybe even overwhelming support for the idea that the government in the course of him best edition it was conducting was asking about his tax return so he would have known that they were interested in it can you still win on that instructional issue yes ok so just explain how  a health care fraud investigation going on in connection with wish the company records were subpoenaed not is because he would be doesn't the record show that he would have known he was being asked about to the company they haven't asked him anything does that answer your question yeah thank argument that on the peer issue of mrs bill which was the question debated in motions eliminate that that could have been preserved although you don't think it's clear because the rule itself says it's preserved by the on the record ruling this was not made part of the record and the parties have an obligation and has an obligation to clarify that they have the ruling they want on the record but at best what's preserved here is just the bare question of whether this conviction could be admitted subject to the one that could not be an abuse of discretion everything else question of suggest that there's not an investigation underway so we think there was some sort uncontested evidence and again some of the questioning of the witnesses governesses suggestion sort of took as a given that there was an investigation and  records including specifically its tax documents the fact that in a subsequent meeting he actually does this on cross examination he was asked not only about the corporate tax documents but these are the facts of his father was visited and you in the course of that could you hand over the corporate tax records for the company we're investigating in the health care investigation ok at that moment but are you saying it is foreseeable to him that he could be investigated for the tax fraud and therefore undermine now while anything he does to information that would reveal that he might have committed tax fraud and then the fact that he then covered up means he was obstructing an investigation that it's just overwhelmingly likely that he foresaw what happened is that the government are you know the point is that that he took these obstructed actions in response to the investigation what's he learned about it so that i think provides an alternative way of looking at the very same question if we can tell that this presentation of the facts on this set of instructions the in response to your question judge times and the government's theories set forth in the indictment at trial was that he was obstructing in relation to his own personal returns not in relation said he did it but why did why did he submit what he submitted by he created those documents the day before he said he submitted draft documents they were clearly marked as draft  i between the time this emitted them to the government and the time he filed the corporate tax returns he and his father had decided to alter they were boarding positions because everything that's happened to that cooling when he turns over those those documents to the government is in connection with the health care problem that is together he knows what his style his file have indices as to the payments made to him and his company because these are these are really what we're talking about here are not the tax returns of god this is company their tax returns and to keep him in company so it would have his returns would have reflected income received from that payments were going to the corporation not to mr or not to my client directly