one nine one three this morning involves the admission of what we did was highly misleading testimony concerning electronic evidence that was seized in the case this is down to two of our  riot which contained in his words thousands of you might take it that there was there was there was nothing in the material that you can test that went beyond what was in the google materials that were already in evidence is that correct and so that information was from the offices of his john condo run in to tea in clearwater florida and this is a good thing as was that the google e mails condo and others used right what was it about the disputed material that did implicate him directly you know the words what it said was that these what the agent was trying to say was that these google e mails were in fact found the servers in a physical location clearwater florida where this and and the other names for it had offices so in other words it's not simply google had from clearwater florida well you may have had difficulty in having independent evidence to rebut it but you could cross examine him couldn't you but that's that was insufficient as shown by our new problem i think we did cross examine him and i think we were able you it's not sufficient so far as we would agree with you that he was testifying as an expert is that necessary to your claim that we agreed it's not necessary to write a book how could it now could you when otherwise n establishes that the electronic documents were not the same so misleading testimony was put in with you all this man expert not the electronic documents from the clearwater server information match and or the same right we need to see the particular screenshot that the witness was looking at as he did his comparison and that we didn't see the government was not to but i guess i'm asking to one could make an inference about the source of the e mail independent of the testimony one could make that inference but it is far less correct sir but the question is it's true but that this was an additional evidence against your client i guess what i'm asking is why was this additional evidence making this late given that there was other basis or finding a link so significant that it warrants concluding that it was nev understand that his testimony was forensically on sound but more fundamentally those documents and i would direct a court answering your question judge bearing to the government's closing are because they're those electronic did was put the nail in the coffin if you will to tie those exhibits not just some account of his name but to a physical location in florida where he was and that was is so that it's not a question that they were estimate but the fact remains that be exhibits were in evidence regarding most of the agent's testimony and were fear game for the prosecutor in closing argument but they but far different fair game emails would have been some evidence against your client would have been some evidence that i think i could help and far more powerful was an argument based on could you address the venue issue certainly the venue issue  comments don't suffice to satisfy the venue requirement well there's no case that has been cited or that we have discovered which makes lolling comments a sufficient predicate for a venue guess what i don't understand is if i'm the person engaged in the money laundering and i say you know these guys are worried about what's happened to vestment i think they're going to start raising a fuss about this when they do they're going to find out about the money on me and if i say ever heard that oh don't worry i'll call him and i'll tell him everything's fine and that way they'll never find out about the money laundering wouldn't that be sufficient to trigger venue  then justify a finding of venue based on one phone call to a far flung history with no other connection to the case well yes the phone no please you can no i simply going to say if the phone call is crucial to the success of the the conspiracy i don't see that that is an object but it it's an objection in so far as the phone calls in this case were not crucial to the conspiracy in other words they were were simply telephone calls to someone who was hoping to become an investor and never did they may have been in furtherance of a mail or wire fraud stairs or certainly not in my view in front of a conspiracy to do that essentially to object but on river i'm reviewing that the conviction now why couldn't a jury could have found that now there was an ambiguity as to whether the call was only for the extradited try for a crime that simply is not covered in the thank you fortunately there's more confusion on this point than there really ought to be and so i'd like to break down where the e mails that we're talking about existed on there were three different locations one with google desks and fortunately for the government those are where mr draghi goddess's e mail accounts where the disputed evidence came in to other locations one was a hard drive that was recovered by this mr at the offices of the clearwater offices afterwards there were also hard drives and computers seized by the government at those same offices and the defense objections was primarily devoted to the computers and hard drive seized by the government due to alleged mishandling by the iris agents we disagreed with the defense of the trial court but we steered away from that evidence because we were trying to get away from sources of electronic evidence that were more controversy the light on a hard drive on the up so so when mr george got us complains about those hard drives and computers that we sees he's really talking about evidence that was not offered ind friends with him is girlfriend use the austria com address and they corresponded about personal things including about his birthday party these are e mails that could only have been sent by him we have establish strong evidence that this was his e mail and had in fact the subscriber information had his name on the account the subscriber information also had the house with the credit cards that were in his name used for any target as that might be associated with the g mail accounts there was an address that he lived in in recent years ago that was on the subscriber information there was you really are asking the the witness to testify did the jury amount something that isn't in evidence i mean if if if this really all these men were doing just with a piece of paper rather than up and so what we have are printouts of the e mail accounts of e mails from the google e mails and what mr smyth did was he was able to observe by simply doing what any of us could do which is open microsoft compare not forensically but the contents of it which is again something that we do all the time is at the same two is the same from is it the same date is it the same words as the same subject line and that's what testifying about when he said that things were the same if there was any doubt in a direct examination that that's exactly what it was doing and that he was not doing a forensic analysis it was made  attack on the weight of evidence the arguments that are being raised by mr left on this appeal are the same arguments that he and i had before the jury at the trial and those arguments were appropriate for the jury to decide as a result the the there really is no valid appellate claim here i would like to address why was testifying before it was not what mr smyth was doing because he was not tying the google e mails to a computer that he was using or anything like that he was simply saying that the corresponding not altered the hard drive could you address the venue issue yes and i guess in particular since there isn't any direct reference in the loan calls to the money laundering scheme or there is no statement i'm calling to protect you from your money wandering scheme right what's your response to the argument that we shouldn't just understand those calls to have been aimed at protecting against the fraud incidentally it's the case that he will only call to protect you from any illegal activity you're engaged in no matter how unrelated to the action that the loan was intended to protect right so is there any evidence here that the loan calls were intended to protect the money wondering scheme as opposed to the fraud itself and does it matter if there isn't any evidence  communication is that were in massachusetts that well the indications in the massachusetts were two of broker for a developer who had already made a deposit his money as the evidence showed from the bank records was being dissipated it was spent it was being sealed as the wire fraud scheme was going on and so these lovely communications were designed to put the broker did because what it did is a boss what will send it what it said first of all your money is safe and you you're going to be funded or suggested that they were going to be funded because it wasn't just putting it out of p and bankers took place over more than two years and you had over eight thousand transactions i mean they were absolutely confusing and they they went between twenty different bank accounts  a myriad of ways and that all the way they went about it took a lot of time and in fact it the low rating is what gave them the time to do  it does your argument boil down to this that when there are two simultaneous schemes going on and one in the next the exposure of one of them would put victims of the other on the alert and say gee if he's doing this thing wrong maybe do something wrong with the transaction for me that under those circumstances a call which is  about how the person being leveled was victimized by the money laundering scheme well the money laundering conspiracy was twofold one was concealing the proceeds and the other was betting so to