what is there that's going to alert the court without objection if there is a problem well i think the first thing is the court needs to in terms of reviewing the two companies make  determination as to what the primary function of those two companies were i don't think that was done by the government's proffer that's the first thing that's going to lord the current court to a problem the second thing years the court knew in the trial brief from the government there was no documentation given to the court whatsoever or leading to lloyd's of london ensuring or issuing performance spawn's for c p s and that's clearly the reason the government wanted that evidence then clearly and i think that's an issue that was on counsel to help the court to do yes i agree to a large extent but i think in this case your honor the court was given that issue was flagged and my position is that was not through their witnesses was that mr bowman started at point a with c p s and he continued with a course of conduct through t k gene and that was their theory and the court knew that at the time so even if the court felt the tr well i think it's relevant because it goes directly to mr bowman state of mind and i don't agree that the fraud had already occurred i don't i dispute that with the government's position and the reason i say that is this mr bowman started this company an  approximate year and a half to two years later he is notified that lloyd's of london is not reassuring his bond to get received a telephone call and usually he didn't believe it he received a letter about a month later from an andrew rag from lloyd's of london purportedly letter indicates specifically that kids it was doing everything possible to get the necessary questions answered concerning the reinsurance while at the same time consuming our work with the companies which we have invested mr bowman the government's position is the at that point and they want to draw a line in the sand because they don't mr bowman to talk about to the jury about anything else that happened in terms of his good faith efforts to secure the principal investment of the no one homers and so i think when the court cuts off mr bowman's ability to show that he spent over two hundred thousand dollars securing a new policy arena sure it's through s c c a that nicely in the argument and the right to that he did not have any specific intent he didn't have any intent to defraud anybody and furthermore it tied in with his lack of ability to proport is a good faith offense because his defense at trial was that i rely on a mr percentage he told me we had a bond we paid him over four hundred thousand dollars for that which came about within a month i believe was in june of ninety eight the jury should have known that and to not know that i think was that was there by the court the third issue that was raised at the trial hispanic he was the policy of insurance he believed he had it he found out it wasn't there when the jury instructions were finalized the court denied mr bowman the good faith instruction which was proposed defense proposed instruction and he simply relied on all of the instructions that were put in as part of the general package and what's particularly troubling with regard to the language of the instructions that were given to the jury is the fact that one this is a specific intent crime and this court will find no language whatsoever in any of those three instructions and i believe their instructions sixteen seventeen and nineteen contained in app record seventeen that talk about have your defendant's proposed instructions here is that what you're talking about and what's being what is precisely the error or is it the rejection of your formulation or the inadequacy of the instructions as given i think i think it's both i think it's think it i don't think it does i don't think it clearly spells out for the jury that if mr bowman is to be convicted the jury has to find that he has the specific mental state of mind to trust somebody and furthermore clearly that instruction does not adequately address the issue green the court was required to put into language the specific intention to defraud i mean there's general intent and specific intent crimes and my position is that with regard to the instructions that were given for this jury i did not adequately cover that particular  what i talked about but i think the principle applies here in the sense that when mr bowman was not allowed to make decisions for t k she as of june of one nine hundred ninety eight and nobody had lost any money at that point and an independent tell us something when you have a very tells you that you know the juries believe the government now but i don't think necessarily roger that means by definite i mean i don't see how you can not hard to see how you can argue that it's not a ponzi scheme after he's been convicted what fifteen counts was convicted fifteen counts of mail fraud that's what he's convicted of it does not necessarily follow that it's a ponzi scheme by definition because of the conviction i don't i would agree with that respect to financial capital company of america the f c c i think this issue will be very brief but it presents me a segue to the good faith issue and also an overarching issue in the case here is the thing that he was saying that he was prejudiced by the inability to put in evidence that after his fraud was discovered after his ponzi scheme was shut down that he tried to go out and find a replacement guaranteed for his canfield group program a program which had no profits no legitimate investments where the principal spent more than a million dollars of investor money on a house on renovating a house on renting another house while he did that and on black buying luxury cars and ski trips and shopping sprees the notion that anyone is going to insure or insure that program is extraordinarily difficult to believe and that underlies the capital preservation fund it underlies the canfield group that underlies this effort put in evidence about the financial company of america and under a license of good faith arguments that whole program could never be insured by anyone or reinsured by the words of one and when those were the parameters of his program his investment program also another issue on the defendant's proposed jury instruction it was very confusing and it was inaccurate which was an alternative grounds that the district court used to refuse to give that five percent back commission kickbacks eighty thousand dollars they gave an unsecured loan undocumented loan to another friend of his the piece in the fall was russian and american missiles used to make golf clubs he had a position of trust he doesn't argue that he just argues his guilt or innocence on the issue of whether he abused it and i think that the jury's verdict is clear on that