scheme to defraud through a retiring scheme hiring or committing persons for positions in the probation service who were recommended response or by members of the massachusetts legislature when those persons were not the most qualified quotes applique and there was no evidence that mr o'brien received any money or gifts in exchange for jobs there was no allegation that any person he hired was not qualified for the position they received there was nothing indictment to define how the most qualified person should or would be determined or indeed who the most qualified person was for any particular position and suggest that this is a case of it is a case in which a supreme court recently said in mcdonald the federal government has tried to set standards of good government for local and state officials but potential criminal code is not designed to  set political standards for state officials for state government this case essentially about political influence in hiring and whatever your views of that are it is not as the district court instructed the jury in opening instructions and then it's closing instructions it is not a crime rather it is a matter that should we suggest should be left to the state to address w city allegation the allegation is everything you said so far is actually true patronage hiring is not a crime he put to one side or to his point it became a mulligan well the certification is the it is what the government is claiming is the immaterial misrepresentation we're suggesting first that it is not a misrepresentation because there is no reason for reading that section more broadly and in fact the supreme traditional quarter in addressing personnel standards that's crystal standards is used that phrase is used only in section four point four zero zero and in addressing the general objective of hiring the most qualified individual without any definition and there is nothing in the manual or anywhere else that it says that  seven chapter two seventy six section eighty three to shift the appointing authority from the first justice and the chief justice or ministration management to the commissioner of probation that provision that was attached to each budget beginning in two thousand and one and going into the time of mr o'brien's tenure there that said that notwithstanding any other provision of law all rule or regulation subject to appropriation the commissioner of probation has the exclusive authority to appoint dismiss etc probation officers now to requirements and he interpreted that as including their points but he did not say that he had the authority to override mr o'brien's terminations who would be most qualified and sent them and they were stamped primarily rather that song that and judge moore again testified that he was that other people were signing forms that he should have been  signing just because that was the practice in that had been would that have gone on before these legislative changes so it may be an artifact that continues on and it could be have to provide documentation and letters of recommendation that shows that he's met the following criteria which were the employment experience in the delivery of human services compliance with the standards a copy of the application copy of the birth certificate degree three letters of recommendation showing compensated full time employment employment experience and delivery of human services list and a number of specific criteria that one should meet and in fact everyone who was hired didn't those criteria well that you have in first justice this is what the s j c defined as personal standards are described as personnel standards these listing of these requirements these administrative requirements in four point four certifying that you have sent over all of these forms and that these ones have the information that they are supposed to have in them the cross examination were being conducted by the drudgery in order to insert the jury questions on separate subjects the substantive questions were  used in that section just morning testified at trial of personal standards referred to the manual so we think necessary section requires certification so it's not just it's not the manual which requires certification only it's al along with the certifications that assertion was that mr o'brien is getting the best sunday because they were the best candidates so that's the additional evidence that baby that a jury can rely on to say is that they didn't throw the best knows that the certification is false they're not even seeing the personnel standard the way they're supposed to be used however they may be doing it he knows that he if he knows that the statement he made to him this falls then how do you have material are standards and the notion that this is a complete merit based merit based system is first of all political sponsorship doesn't mean that someone is unqualified or not the most qualified even  that after saying it's the policy of the trial court that appointments be made solely on the basis of merit goes on to the practice and appearance of nepotism or favoritism in the hiring process shall be avoided you have to disclose well it is and go a law degree that that was a good criterion had someone only thing on the judge panel saying she didn't think it was a good qualification so again just an example the right of clarity and lack of not to interests the federal criminal insatiate of essential and state law hiring issue thank you very much