next case for argument please the court the day i received my appointment to represent mr clarke i read the indictment i read the statute at question and i thought i've got a defensible case here because no reasonable person is going to spend and submit tax returns asking for three hundred thousand dollars back that wasn't coming to them the next day i went to see mr clarke where he was being held and i told him this is what our defense is going to be and he said oh no wait he said i got three checks from heiress for three hundred thousand dollars each i didn't believe it the next day we had a detention hearing and i asked the government i said is it true that he got nine hundred thousand dollars from the  the i spent a lot of time with mr clarke and he attributed those tax returns to teachings he had received that the more science temple of america and i still wondered about his competence we had him assess the report said that he was basically a sovereign nation person but i see a difference most of the sovereign nation cases they say the united states has no jurisdiction over me they up the government cannot exist clock was different he said when i was born the government started putting money in an account for me and it grew over time when it was time for me to take out my million dollars or so we never discussed a plea with the government and none was ever offered because everybody believed it would be fruitless to try and lay a factual basis for any type of plea at the same time i was clear with the government what our defense was going to be it was going to be that he believed the money was hips so it's a quickly the government filed a motion in limiting precluding us from using that defense judge lozano granted the motion in limiting we began the trial i mentioned the more science temple in his good faith belief that the money belonged to him  stopped by the judge i was told you can't raise that argument what his beliefs are immaterial irrelevant so i said finally we'll just make our offer of proof when the government's done and then rests which is pretty much what we did except the government when after they rested they withdrew their motion limiting now at this time clark and i mr clarke and i did not know quite sure what we should do because obviously hadn't prepared him to testify because we knew he would not be able to testify but nevertheless i made my rule twenty nine motions saying that the government did not prove that he knew the tax returns were fa that was denied at the end i submitted my jury instruction on good faith belief that instruction was rejected those are my basis for the appeal in this matter i think i don't think i believe the case should be remanded for a new trial thank you thank you m good morning my pleas the court nicholas behalf of the united states feeling the evidence in the light most favorable to the government there was ample evidence to support the jury's conclusion that clarke knew the claims he submitted to the internal revenue service were false just looking at the seven tax returns on the face supports that because those tax returns were clearly and absolutely groundless when you look at the tax returns income portion it ended indicated on off seven tax returns of income of nine hundred thousand dollars are over clark failed to provide any corresponding entries showing how this nine hundred thousand dollars income was obtained additionally there was no evidence that the trust earned any income in august of two thousand and nine that was when clark contacted the internal revenue service and taint identification number tax number for that trusts that was the same time he initially submitted the first three tax returns fishley when you look at the fisher fees it was nine hundred thousand dollars there was no evidence supporting such fees or any offering of any evidence  pennsylvania washington d c which is the white house and in that time to meeting geithner with an end was a us secretary of the treasury at that time so it's reasonable for a jury to infer that clarke knew those  dollars in withholding our clark's personal income tax returns for two thousand and six through three two thousand and eight reported no income from the trust or any payments made on behalf of the trust to him in two thousand no evidence of any third party submitting evidence of any withholding of three hundred thousand dollars for that trust or any payment of any taxable funds to any other persons so when you look at that fifteen to thirty thousand dollars fee to get that cash checked to get that check cashed again the jury could infer that because he was not entitled he knew was not entitled to that cash he decided only cash one check and addition to pay a fee thinking that it may help out process the check a little bit easier and keep the two checks from soft just to see what would happen with this first check and addition to that his communications with them please at the check cashing business when questioned clark one question by an employee as far as the legitimacy of that check clark indicated to the employer that he obtained the check from a trust based on his deceased father however there's no evidence on the tax returns of that trust being related to his father or any other relative last think the most important aspect of this clark's liquidation of the nine hundred thousand dollars that he obtained supports that he knew the claims are false he got rid of the money very quickly within three months january for a march  two thousand and ten he spent approximately eight hundred thousand dollars and the last two hundred thousand dollars he spit in april may in june and that time he purchased two houses four cars and approximately one hundred forty thousand dollars in gold and silver coins moving on to the second issue concerning the court refusing to give a good faith instruction district court did not clearly did not care and refusing to give that instruction clark's request for that instruction as an incorrect statement of law for a eighteen u s c section two eighty seven violation it's a fox claim statute and all that the government required is that the individual submitting the form knew such claim was to be false the statute does not mention anything concerning willfulness requirement and addition that this court has long recognized that wilfulness need not be commentary a good faith instruction is not warranted when the government need only prove a man or mens rea of knowledge when you look at those factors a district court did not air and refusing to give that good faith instr as this court seems that there was an abuse of discretion by the district court government as asking that you find that it would be harmless there is no evidence presented by defense count by car  that was there was a conference with the court the court asked him i believe as far as after discussions with the defense attorney and the defendant and the defense counsel indicated his client did not want to