and when your time has expired please stick to the limit except to the extent that we ask you questions that bring you over the time limit we want you to answer those questions or else is what is thank you for paying to tell you what to argue and feel free to argue the lockout relation issue but i am much more interested in hearing about your argument on the sufficiency of the evidence both with regard to the conspiracy count and as to the aiding and abetting the bank a conspiracy case is that the government has to prove a meeting of the minds to commit an unlawful act that's been charged here the government failed to prove that well the government can meet its burden through circumstantial evidence in this was completely a circumstantial evidence case that still has to be based upon reasonable inferences from the conduct they government cannot prove a conspiracy based on speculation or by proving that the defendant did i think gated with a bad person down i have a few factual questions and i wonder if you might be able to help me out with my st question is concerning the incentive payments and i understand how they were advertised i also notice that the amounts that were actually paid for the down payment didn't match what the incentive payments would have been but i understand that that was done because the buyer quit alack to pay their payments  upfront but what i'm wondering is is there any evidence in their records concerning whether the rest of the incentive payments were made to the buyers or whether any incentive payments were made to the buyers after the payments of the down know your i there's no evidence of that in the record ok so we don't know one way or so if i recall that e mail is in reference to him talking about bringing in additional people and that he's talking about if they do work with these other people that there would still be enough money coming in to where kerry you know would still get her cut even if they added additional people in on this project to work with what is the spread between like earned about ninety percent of those fees for herself and then she testified that she put that on the landing field with one of the other coconspirators ms longer ok so just to make sure i understand the idea would be if she worked with these other these other banks i guess that she would still get the same amount of fees though it wasn't with platinum one financial her employer yes and i think he was pointing her to some other people that were closing deals very quickly in this project  and i think the idea was that it's probably other people then that she would be the one making all the money that's ok the reason i was asking is because i noticed that for the most part  these individuals who are listed on this e mail have much lower down payment requirements so it wasn't clear to me whether he was working with them or whether he was directing her to them just because a down payment full understanding and then so yes your honor when miscarriage you know testified she said that it was her understanding that he just wanted her to work with those people because they were being able to get deals closed and they were able to get them back and i think that's part of what led to one of her other e mails she kind of venting that she's good at what she does she's professional the indictment that mr b of any knew of that plan and that he knowingly involuntary participated in that agreement so they failed to prove that their giovanni knew of the conspiracy and that he voluntarily agreed to intentionally not being disclosed to the bank so that the lenders would authorize mortgages that otherwise might not have been authorized ms carey cboe all of the evidence that the government put on trial showed that the only let me try forward a little bit with the government i understand their response is is that there are two things that i think and there may be more that they can say that there are two inferences that can be drawn from the evidence one is that the defendant was a mortgage broker and as a mortgage broker he would have understood that the documents the information that he was giving to miscarry c e o which did not disclose the payments at least in the contract was being passed on to the bank and the nd is that at least in some instances he he personally received and the hud would have indicated that the bank was not being told about the incentive payments why can't two of those facts be reasonable inferences for his knowledge of the general nature and scope and object of the conspiracy contract with me for the loan with that i think that there is evidence that that that he was at least involved in the preparation of those contracts assume that for the moment so with that i mean if  that i think the government identifies as to those two pieces of evidence why did they not create the reasonable inference that that he knew that that carries the deal with telling the bank i was not disclosing this and sent it to the bank judge looks at it from this apparent stealth by your client and elaborate machinations for example in the bradford closing where any incentive money sent to jail duchies husband packed attorneys since it took me to send it to bradford  jury not recently infer that all that was was accomplished by your defendant for the sole purpose of ensuring that the bank did not know about these incentive  people to forward it to other people and that he would reward them for their referrals he never got to conceal that he was offering and providing incentives he sent it to the broker who sent it to many people it was never anything that he was by both names during this case testified because she was the one that that handled the transcript she said that there was it was all innocuous that they just did that because they wanted to do it carefully and through an attorney factor attorney that had nothing to do with anything but to the jury also consider in addition to all this the fact that descendant had a great financial incentive here he has the has purchased the original now he's in is not getting any downpayment there would have been the law could the jury not also factor in his strong financial interests and in fact an e mail which suggests a little desperation or concern to spark that these things get moving is that not affected the jury could also consider and in terms of determining his motivation and his knowledge of these transaction and there was a part about half of the pain it went to when to marry another half went somewhere else it was it was all due to one of the marriage i read the record but the defendant gave instructions that half of what was due to one america go to some other fellow and while this is not in the trial record i believe and during the aborted plea agreement the defendant suggested the reason he was shuffling half of it to this other person was because that person had put up some credit for the defendant through when the mayor to purchase the original it reasonable for a juror without any evidence of understanding what a mortgage broker does to know that a mortgage broker would be passing along the information from the contract not disclosing the incentives and telling the bank in documents that the defendant did not see and doesn't appear to be looted on that those without disclosing that information i think that it is reasonable turn from the fact that he was a licensed real estate broker that had knowledge about how the real estate market worked and i think that the emails that he that were introduced at trial show that he was aware of bank underwriting standards and generally that these loans would not close the banks knew that the in front of mauritius this is ron rosenbaum where do you get that from the last half of what you the underwriting standards of the various banks and and one place he notes that the loan to value of one is ninety five percent minus five percent for declining market share c to write back that they are maxed out at eighty percent loan to value that if the burden on you is to show that you have knowledge of the nature of the conspiracy and here the allegations are the indictment says that and that was given to the jury that the nature of the conspiracy is a false statements were being made to the bank how does that i'm sorry i understand what you're saying and i think that if there had been evidence that what it means to be a life and real estate broker you know what you have to pass and what everybody thought and how it's impossible for a li broker to believe that alone could close without without any payment by the alleged buyer i guess if the bank or aware of that then i think you would be totally i mean so there was evidence at one of the banks custodians testified that you know there has to be good in the game and i think that that's a pretty basic i understand completely that there have to be skin in the game and i'm sure he understood but the problem is i don't know where the evidence is that would indicate that he understood that in other words of ok you know i ones and i mean i don't what is the line on the one that you would point to or the lines or anything on the one that would necessarily allow somebody reading them yes technically the money from the far right but only because it was wired to these intermediaries or given to them shortly before closing had about the not intended to hide that he could have sent it straight to  had the same question an issue that the pros about identifying how was he to know that the hud one goes to or was part of what was sent to the banker was given to the bank because i read the entire one that's say you can work with this program you can work with that broker he financially profited from the luxury he took from the ski and he took steps from the scheme so though and there are people it says it does the fact that somebody profited from it is strong defendant will at trial beyond a reasonable doubt the united states did not entirely with hearsay evidence and the only objection that the defendant made at trial was the will twenty nine months that the evidence was insufficient and then on appeal said we the amount of the closing costs to the amount of the chap are we going to find that they are this dame or almost the same ring and referring to april held and what giovanni never said he was writing the contract is just as well that is that's not that's not totally accurate you are right i is understand that the mortgage broker was kicking back half of her commission that she's getting from the banks to defend the common law wife the hairdresser and i guess you're arguing on that would be well that's not to the hairdresser wife that that was getting that so we can tag him with that because she's the one getting that kickback thing that would be your argument that is my argument you're irish she was an indicted coconspirator but well they may have proven that tie from the mortgage broker to the hairdresser for lack of a better term never tied that up to mr giovanni having any knowledge the government and for that here in france that because she was a hairdresser mr you miss yard i mean is it not reasonable for the jury to infer he isn't she's a hairdresser he's a broker ok maybe we don't know everything a broker should know we know he should probably know more about this at least than her but that he also has his and senate again he's on the float for half a one million dollars the market is cratering the males indicate he's sort of desperate to unload these properties can we not and for a minimum amount of curiosity on his part to be reading these documents to be making sure that everything in them is right or just i don't care somebody there's some divine creator out there is looking after me but i don't have to read anything everything will work out can't the jury assume from both his knowledge of his experience what he does for a living and his financial incentive that he shows a little more curiosity at looking at these documents and being aware of what's going on than you would suggest  a responsibility in these transactions middle longer bone is a member of one america financial that has her own responsibility issues she wouldn't have a partner if she was just were sponsible