saying that even if the court reverses fleet's conviction on other counts sweet has not challenge his conviction for sale receipt of stolen properly property accordingly that conviction stands we've in our in our opening brief at page sixty we specifically say a retrial is being sought as to all the mail fraud counts the money laundering and the receipt of stolen property so in the reason why the stolen property wasn't dwelled on is story why is that why is it as i understand it he got a bunch of money from these people which he said it was going to be escrow to use for their best man and he then took a chunk of it not the  transactions the first one was with kathy stephan and she set that up and that's where the two hundred five thousand dollars went into the escrow and she said mr sweet documents saying that your money is earned has earned a certain amount of money and what he was saying was he received that money he paid her words for money paid the people that were helping him money he was under the impression that there was money for his own personal expenses yes ma'am he did but that but but where that came from though was his perception that there would be through the money would come back from the transaction when before them all the other facts of his receiving this money from friends and relatives and also that he promised that he was going to get twenty five percent every eight weeks but the jury re mr sweet is not of financial wizard and his background is music and he did sell insurance but there were three other people that he begin to rely on in the beginning mr hold this miner and i'm yours i forget the third one but one was a banker one was i had a tremendous amount of experience that he used traveling around and so  and simple and that it was like the whole thing up with was unbelievable that he promises people twenty five percent return on their investment every eight weeks and the jury concluded that his position transaction he and that's the one where he spent the money from that but he was and i'm guilty of the other transaction this is where the jury instruction comes into play and why it's so critical there's three years with i don't understand i mean you're saying there's no present we we know that the twelve through to the lawyers before it was charged that's true no one said buck well we know that the government created the instruction and they didn't say anything either when it was misread we had t jury in its entirety and see whether or not there was a eight and looking at the entire jury instruction where the structures were pretty broad after this defense  he contacted me after the i'm trying to understand where there is a non suspect explanation for some of his actions and then answer that question would be very helpful may and so he's trying to put that together and that's what he writes a letter in august to finally it's a it's hard to explain when you unless seems unbelievable when you if you look at what's going on but if you look at what the jury found that's why it's because they put on evidence that he received the money and then he didn't put it in the bank that absolutely did not follow what counsel i want to address the issue of the tape the tape was the most important thing that the defense wanted to offer up at the trial we believe it was a relevant piece of evidence that would show mr  to educate warn advise potential investors of the dangers the risks and the obligations of the investors before undertaking these confirmation of fun transactions ok that's good let me answer one word tweet and  in taking the stand again and said it wasn't and we don't know if it is or not i think that should have gone to weight not a disability but my bigger issue was that the government had introduced exhibit forty zero which was the chart which was a large part feeling with the twenty three prior confirmation of funds what he was talking about this telephone call was you're going to give me a bunch of money and i'm going to give you a letter back saying there's a bunch of money set aside for you and i occasion i don't commit the crime i don't want the burden of the government says that the proof of a non crime doesn't mean that he didn't do it on these other occasions but it could have been evidence as to that and it should be going to weight rather than miss ability if the jury should have seen that for these prior twenty three feelings or may have been another letters i don't think that that's the way the state of the evidence showed up and i still don't know and i think that's why he wasn't convicted of some of these letters it was the reference that on made that deals with some reference in that christmas letter to the current events namely that this whole thing is just just a lot of nonsense back there is a fraud he knew other people's funds were being used and it would not be unlikely i think the now thrown statute says i'm likely her anyway i'm just this minute on that with what was interesting though is when he's convicted in illinois and they introduce evidence in illinois of the sweet transaction then i do a double jeopardy motion to dismiss for duplicate or prosecution and i think that's a better argument  instantly direct me to other subjects with their once your what you want to discuss with me there are several points that stand out told six hundred thirty five  appears here is that there's a sort of a promise that there is going to be ten million dollars not just that i'm going to say there's ten million dollars as the expert explained there are lots of there are some provisions in the agreement that are nonsensical and there are some that actually you could find as a standard contract provision like maybe an indemnity clause in a real contract but what's key here is for the four hundred fifty thousand dollars this one page letter v in order to match store car and you have to send certain documents around to make loans but although they're there it's certainly true that he obviously expected that some representations were being made an might have some reason i think they are untrue representation so you certainly have no specific reason to believe that the specific letters are probably written that are going to be letters as opposed to phone calls as opposed him in as opposed to face to face conversations what an overwhelming circumstantial evidence case from which the jury certainly can draw inferences that mr geller do indeed know that the money sent to him was criminally derived he doesn't have to know the specific crime well those cases we cited like the bolan case the root case from this court the polish any case do talk about these types of schemes cease trading schemes which are totally fictional and talk  about circumstantial evidence the jury being able to draw inferences from that evidence there but i am ok so out of this circuit involved concocting phony documents this e o f letter was phony from a to z  got to have something to say to the people that he's stolen the funds from and so then there's another layer out there there that other layer has to find or that's why mr les mays got seventy five thousand dollars from m finding this transaction and then mr gill or do i mean mr sweet is able to send off money and then get a piece of paper that he has or he can point to and everybody can go like this the money's gone somewhere else and it's purpose is this carry out of process i mean he knows mr st cyr for that so so it has no honest purpose is not true and it's so it has no truth he's done this twenty three times before over a period of the actual use of the mail he doesn't have to be involved with that and he doesn't even have to know about that i think that that's what creates the federal crime in the jurisdiction the use of the mails but i do not believe that he actually has to know that i would say also that it he was communicating with sweet by mail and certainly the jury kind of fur that that's how mr sweet's going to be communicating with his victims but i don't believe you're on  were the judge just in the forty five minute or so reading of the jury instructions read the word defendant in the good faith instruction instead of the word victim three sets of written meters there was very strong evidence including at page thirty three in the supplemental excerpts of record in the application for the confirmation of fun letter talks about compensation w f a's that's m as agents brokers employees finders they will be compensated there was also testimony by brian mcguire at trial on that point and then there was the document page one fifty eight and  supplemental excerpts actually shows the payment of seventy five thousand dollars to less maze that is to find her and our point on that while course there are points with spector sufficiency evidence but then with respect to the tape recording of the conversation is that the purpose of that finder of course it's to screen mr gill or do chief from two types of people law enforcement agents who might be investigating him or honest investors who would scream bloody murder be going to the police hiring well as not being relevant because the agreement was in evidence and that's where mr geller did she did include all this language about the high risk investment but you know the thing on that is it can't be lost sight of on the one hand you have that all of things in the agreement you know but the high risk investment and the sophisticated investor and all of that you've also got two provisions there one in the agreement where the applicant agrees to assume the entire responsibility and liability to any third party claiming harm as a result of the transaction and that's in the supplemental excerpt at page sixty five and then in the escrow agreement at page eighty four paragraph thirteen there's language that says if the depositors someone other than the applicant that person has no standing to challenge the transaction now when you have this what with respect to the money laundering your honor the only thing that needs to be shown there that it was over a certain amount that was shown and also that he knew that it was of criminally derived thousand dollars i'm sorry the next thing that happens is the agreement is entered into december second but six days later for delivery of the c e o a letter the next day all this money comes in on december fifth the page seventy eight in the structure and there's no financial information furnished by mr sweet at all and then the documents it talks about high degree of risk but at the same time if it turns out to be somebody else you know any charge against such property can be that we do not have to show and did not have to show what crime the money was derived from and i believe that's the way the jury instruction reads it just has to be criminally  money for a one page of absolutely worthless nonsense telling the person the receiver of the letter that you have ten million dollars in some bank down in coaster rica when in fact your house was in bankruptcy you're in foreclosure you know the stranger and this is somebody who's gathering money illegally taking it from other people and that's the source of the money and the language in the agreements about good clean cleared funds of non criminal origin i mean that is ridiculous but