whether we talked tellingly envelops peterson testified that he and walker were joking together about how they lied to investors and wouldn't that be enough to justify a jury and believing that she wasn't looked when she also said she was relying on the brochures yet she knew that harrison not backers stated and they had brochures was in charge she knew that she had not invested and she was telling people she had i mean is that enough for a jury to conclude that her or her claim that she was just waiting for a bus wasn't valid and i don't think on the record she was in her mind that she really knew that she was to get a jury heard all of this and said you know we think that she's lying to us about not knowing what was going on and there's a lot of support evidence that defendant walker as well as the other defendants had in fact acted with the intent to defraud and we know defendant walker acted with the intent of the fraud for several reasons first she made a number of different misrepresentations that were misrepresentations contained in the brochures and pick the brochure and pitches that she used she went above and beyond simply relying on the brochure and pictures however and added misrepresentations on her own when she was talking with prospective investors in addition to the misrepresentations there are significant omissions that defendant walker made all of the investors who testified about discussing a potential investment with defendant walker invested after cypress semiconductor case and in that case the court had held that vague and indefinite predictions on the part of a company could not serve as the basis of misrepresentation a civil securities matter here we have quite a different situation here we have specific misrepresentations about what investors could expect in the way of return and multiple investors who bought stock very soon the company would go public they were told that the company would go public and i think that it's telling that not only did charles peterson testify that he knew that the company was not going to go public not only was there no evidence of a potential initial public offering but defended walker in an interview with camille hand and said that she never told any investors that the company was about to go public the implication or inference that the jury could draw from that is that she knew that the company wasn't going to be going public so why  they had moved the insured operation into the senate walker's apartment defendant walker and peterson were joking i believe about a misrepresentation concerning the number of sales people that they were telling prospective investors were out working selling products on behalf of the sure loves selling the latex gloves in fact there was no doubt selling latex gloves at that point as they were telling investors there were as many as forty salespeople and investors found that conviction that's correct that is a daunting standard for the defendant still over common here a rational trier of fact could and did find to defend its guilty of the no wire securities fraud count on the conspiracy you'd like i can turn to the evidence that supports the content conviction or if you have no further questions i can submit on the briefs both with regard to the convictions and the sentencing arguments although i spend a lot of energy bringing all these all these materials out here well we have prepared extensive analyses of of the case so unless you have nothing else no questions i g anybody have any response right the case stan submitted thank you all very much we'll get you a decision as soon as we can and the turnout who's timing is always impeccable has a has arrived so we will call the final case on the calendar which is united states versus ral to