paid all the tax the this are correct excluded that evidence under cheeks the defendant had the right to have the jury consider that evidence for because this is a specific stand and said i got these records from another special agent who claimed to have gotten them from the owner and they claim that they were business records when so right now you have the exclusion of the tax payment evidence and inclusion o bonus records as a amounted to about sixty five sixty six percent of the case of the government and the theory was that either it was a business record but there was no one around to make nexis  places and that the numbers were in sequence with other indications that were there so there was circumstantial evidence that these things were authentic i don't see any answer when your in your reply brief to those contentions first of all payment for goods products or whatever and the district court looked at it because it said the influence been on the back of the checks represented an admission but there is no evidence like in the usual case you're going to connect it up there's no evidence that the defendant exception which is an exception to the hearsay rule now you're looking for another exception to say we don't need to sell you the records well i don't need anybody proper to identify like the rest of the case where other vendors had individuals on the stand w represent taxable income how do you know that these invoices are authentic that they really represented the goods and products and why didn't the government answer the question of the longstanding accountant ruc you look at invoices and checks  here is exhibit fourteen years exhibit thirty eight years ago or thirty nine can you would then a five these can you then tell us what they were for no you don't have any of that why not i mean is an inference a negative one that's drawn when somebody has control of the payment the end of the information in this case was entered on september two thousand and one the payment a four hundred fifty nine thousand dollars was made approximately one month before the trial and she lie of two thousand and two the card at the time the of perturb or files and not five six four years later just before the eve of trial would have prejudiced the government that had these returns for another year because the jury probably would have been confused as to one of the elements there where the receipts and the receipts that we got some of them overlapped exactly with the with the receipts that we got a search warrant we found the underlying books with the  carbon copy is what they are and that's where we found those and so they were corroborated by the records that were perceived at the search warrant and also cooperated by the records obtained from  would they would have to prepare for the case in all events and in fact one special agent testified and luna testified it's in the record that mr paine told her at the when they were doing the interview  was broken into three different deposits of less than nine thousand dollars they were specified as to the found pay and it would be different deposits were specified in the summary in the exact timeframe over a period of time all these other records included and who knows what the chain of custody was because the two other agents didn't testify there were no exemplars there were no identification here there was only the government's i guess the government's argument