first issue that i raised is whether or not there was sufficient evidence to prove that the funds the federal funds were directly given to the rocky boy health care  insufficiency of evidence of all three counts because i believe there's a relationship between the admission of c e o taddeo says conviction and the sufficiency of evidence based on the conduct that the government alleged so i want to address that just briefly in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence because there are several acts that were charged by the government one was taking double paychecks one was taken severance pay she wasn't intitled to the other one was taken supplemental pay and the other one was taking overtime pay and then requesting more retirement benefits and she was titled if you take away the conviction of c e o taddeo some look at the evidence without consideration of that because i believe the case law is that you can't use that conviction a subset of evidence can only be used as a piece of evidence if it's admissible at all between another employee and as taddeo so there's so what the record in this case shows is that is that the ms bar set got approval for that severance pay and what the other evidence says is the conflicting evidence  says you can only get severance pay upon terminations which is you know i mean commonly understood the policies were not admitted the trial policies were not admitted but miss billy who worked for the tribe who actually said that she was part of developing the tribe policy said that there are other reasons for collecting severance pay permitted under the the travel policy so again look at me through the jury had evidence from which they can conclude that's how we who said that you can only get up upon terminations there was conflicting evidence from his belly that said no there's other reasons for so what and it was the other evidence was it was proved by  that's true that is true as far as the overtime pay takes is one witness believable witness on a particular fact in theory if that's true and as far as the overtime pay is concerned the government presented no evidence that ms moore s an exemption point they presented her title they presented the fact that she was a salaried employee they didn't present it nor did the court order that something on that on the fact that she was not and that she was exempt they gave testimony that she was exempt but they didn't established by law that she was exempt because there is a whole panoply of rules under the fair labor standards act that the government argued the tribe was it was governed by how could they say she wasn't titled overtime so yes if i'm understanding your argument you are it is that it was an honor for the judge to allow that testimony and not to not jump in and strike it is that right i guess would be another way to express it but but it was still revealing your favorite nobody that the defense counsel didn't ask the judge to make that determination that history that is true so so that was my point i didn't want to get too far off on that tangent but what you were trying to give us your argument and i think we've jumped in a couple different ways about that the supervisor tabio says conviction yes and my problem with that i want to give you an opportunity to respond it seems to me that part of the defense this was this was baked testify an accomplice objection any objection no objection and that not only and not an objection is one of the thing your team was arguing in the trial court i prefer that you weren't there as you know i understand that but why isn't that sort of game set and match on that well it isn't because the only reference that the fence team made is in the closing argument is that really the only one asked yes because all of all of the testimony throughout the trial that related to ms taddeo says conviction was started by the government in opening statement presented by agent ritually and then through the testimony then there was cross examination and the evidence of the conviction in the sentence was all unsolicited comments that were th objection no objection and a very in my opinion the use of it in the closing argument admitting that there was a culture of corruption in the tribe and that you should find her not guilty because she's just part of this culture of corruption i think just is not a defense that is viable who was in federal prison and for taking money from through a credit card nothing that do with pay or anything like that and the jury was even told that it was different conduct even if it was admitted there was it seems to me that from that we've got this other argument that defense counsel was so ill advised that he actually in effect yes ok why would we reach that on direct appeal because i think the record argument that goes to her innocence and as the as the government pointed out that it may have been an argument more towards during all the chase in which we know is not appropriate was the argument for her  it's wrapped into the can and you know that was the heart of the culture of corruption if the argument would have been everybody was receiving severance pay for under these circumstances everybody was receiving overtime pay that was approved by  the approved by the supervisors and by the board and everybody was or could receive double pay as long as it was approved by another board member and some is more set didn't do anything wrong because other people were doing it but that's not what happened what happened was is that it was wrapped into this idea that there's this culture of corruption up in the tribe he conceded that there was a culture of corruption which means everybody is committing crimes and that and part of his argument was the two people conviction coming in and the use of it by both the prosecution and then the reference that by defense counsel it certainly would have made for much cleaner more fair trial against ms moore set to try to convince the jury that because she had signatures on all of these documents and because ms belize says the policy allowed for severance pay beyond just terminations and all this without the idea that others were convicted of the same conduct without even explaining what that appreciate that that the defense wasn't literally not with the evidence that everybody was doing it it was a few people obviously in case i use that term to listen i don't want to disparage anybody else sure but but to the legal point one of those rare cases for failing to yeah for failing to object or failing to challenge that evidence whatsoever i think the i but i think i'm asking the court for two reasons to reverse this the first reason is for under plain error which the cases defendants statement is not admissible except for impeachment is a is a proposition a law that's that's more than just limited to other circuits i think it's a fairly universal understanding there just hasn't been a quick decision by this court directly on that those kind of certainly i'm willing to confess and not err on judge morse's part but certainly err on my own what i should have done was in was differently and if we have to retry this case this is the way it's going to be tried is i should have brought in is more sets admission that she taken all the money without referencing what her defense was pretty common for us if a person gives a self serving response to an accusation that we put that in our case but we don't have to and probably shouldn't have in this case which would have put her in a position of having to take that stand which she did anyway to say that she had missed that he owes his permission or mr rose that's permission or or other permissions to take all the money that she was taking approximately thirty thousand dollars a year more than her salary had that occurred though i do not think that the conviction of mist had us would have been any sort of error although we might have gotten into the facts of the conviction but even then i probably would have gone was convicted of that wasn't necessarily the only crime she was committing and had we then done that we would have been more methodical about saying to miss moore set that you know you approved her or her duplicate salary you approve her over time you'll prove her takings as well and then we also have would get ms moore said who is the chief financial officer for the health clinic then she also was involved in the takings by her other boss mr rose at and by the chairman as well as other people in her office that didn't happen but that didn't happen when we were got way ahead of ourselves and that was my fault but i don't blame judge morris for that or can see there on his behalf wasn't playing no whatever and that because i don't think they can reach the if even if you argued that the judge should have knowledge of that of this is being inappropriate once you get to the third portion of the plein air review standard which you would have an outcome on the quay that's judge way with the what ifs do come into play i don't know what was on defense counsel's mind in terms of how he was best going to represent ms moore said but he didn't have a whole lot of options and i can't blame judge morris for jumping into a strategy he didn't he hadn't developed yet whether that was a strategy of the defense to to make it is this question of play review it was was there closing argument for certain that during the course of the trial the evidence came in through the government agent for yes the jury hear that that that there had been ignitions made by the defendant to the effect that she had done this to take care of yank kids as a context in which it came in around or care for grandchildren and that she claims she had permission they heard they heard that they knew that yes in the responses can was it a good faith reliance on a permission on a person who was participating in the same corruption as she was in terms of larcenous behavior within the health care clinic if the court has no other questions that i do believe that's the most central issue of of all of them i don't believe there's we will we will do as mr hormel has done and submit the others for the court's consideration on the briefs but thank you thank you