after after the second trial and thought the motion for a new trial and in between do i understand it was mr worksman that is correct and part of your argument on appeal was that was given ineffective legal assistance in the criminal proceeding no he did not make a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel your honor we made it ok but we made a claim only that he was denied his right to maybe the key to this appeal is really the overall unfairness of this criminal prosecution against dr brader he was treated unfairly from the very start when the government came upon frequent your honor that you do that government uses your own lawyer against you and in this way he wasn't a lawyer he was a lawyer he was a he was apparently a disbarred lawyer but he was a lawyer he represented himself to be a lawyer he was referred to my client by another lawyer who believed disregarded rules from his d o j handlers and admitted that he had taken one hundred twenty eight thousand dollars more out of central america even after he began cooperating but it didn't it didn't record before the magistrate judge indicate that your client asked mr sorrels advice about whether you should hire a lawyer i mean that's not anything you do but if you think you are dealing with a lawyer and we got a sense of the time that relationship had gone on that long i was three or four years into the relationship where he had advised him in all aspects of tax and iras and and overseas transfers of funds and setting up panama corporations all of that but he never advise him on anything involving criminal law and now all of a sudden he's being faced with a criminal law inquiry and so he the idea that he wanted to get a lawyer that had expertise and asked him about a lawyer we think that's been overblown by the prosecution to indicate that oh you did know he was a lawyer because you asked for a lawyer while he was looking for a different kind of lawyer just when you said something in your just a moment ago about a motion to dismiss my understanding was the issue that was raised before the district court testimony of mr sara nello and almost nothing that if we suppressed his testimony in the few the poisonous tree that would not have been the case left to proceed on but i did misspeak when i called it a motion to dismiss you you begin your arguments voice saying that this case presents for us some agree just on fairness are you making a due process argument oh absolutely the combination of the things that happened here i think and up to five in him of due not process not the biggest problem in this case and there are a number i hope to touch on all of them but the biggest one is is that the key witness it became absolutely clear had also tried to get six hundred seventy three thousand more dollars out of panama after he'd been caught getting the hundred twenty eight thousand dollars out while working for the department of justice and the report regarding that had some names and phone numbers in it  disclose this information that they knew or should have known and they clearly should have known that the star witness or their sarah nello had been involved in trying to get that six hundred seventy three thousand now in our view they didn't go get that information not because it was hard to get because it was simple to get and we filed a motion to exclude him hall so after our motion to suppress and provided more information that would put them on to this trail but they just refused to go down it because they didn't want to find out their star witness was that dirty but he was that dirty and we never had a chance for the judge at the most in the suppress hearing to learn the full extent of that dirt and we never had a chance for the jury to learn the full extent of that dirt and as a result both the district his wife has emotional and mental problems they were going through a third divorce the first who had reconciled now it's the third one this time it involved some boyfriends that had been involved the fore the children and dr bradley are all believe he has mental he took it down there it there was a how how would she have gotten the money if he let's say he had not taken it to panama how would the wife have gotten the money the court would have ordered it split through the divorce like they did from the  alaska courts it's not like she was about to steal the money and this right she would have gotten fair and square in proceedings before that ask a court where he could argue about mental but i don't know if that's your definition of standing service and i don't know what you consider to be a crook well let's look at what he did with the money when he went down they are good for starters he didn't break any law taking it the three of us that he's a crook now you can keep arguing this point but i doubt you're going to make any headway on that let's move on this or let's just accept the fact that he's a crook ok well please don is what did he say when the alaska court came knocking it when the alaska court came lock knocking did he say what money or i only got a couple hundred thousand said it's locked up here in an illiquid investment that  can get to for several years correct and now there's a possibility that that that was not true well that's never been determined whether it's true or not but apparently the jury found him guilty anyway if we believe that because there is evidence to show that sarah nello has tried was setting up dr brader to steal his money he was working very hard to keep it under his control and to keep it in central america and only the fact that he became a operative for the government and it became more important for him to move it back to america did that money ever come back when dr bradley needed access to that money to pay for scoliosis surgery for his daughter couldn't get it sir noel to convince him it was not available leveraged in some fashion so whether he knew or did not know that that money was locked up and we believe there's evidence to show he thought it was locked up but even if he knew it wasn't locked up he never lied about the money and to beef wire fraud there must be father must be lost to a victim and there was no last year the money came back he was grabbed by ice the money came back with the interest it was earned there was no loss it leads to this calculation of the intended loss and the guidelines argument that move ahead to that he was going to steal all this money from from this is brad there it's just not supported by the evidence it needed to be clear and convincing evidence and it wasn't even be it wasn't even more likely than not presented the evidence really consists of nothing more  then the government informant mr sevan elo trying to lead him on phone calls to say something like yeah let's write this letter that says the money is all lost he never agreed to that he there was and instructed properly i don't think they could have because if they did understood more clearly the need for there to be an actual loss to the victim to be consist of wire fraud and we asked for delineating jury instructions on that but they weren't given with the court alyssa hurt me and for the united states the record in this case demonstrates that the defendant intended to defraud his wife by taking millions of dollars in marital assets driving millions of dollars in marital assets to central america hiding them when he was unsuccessful in hiding those assets and coast rica finding a way to hide them in the name of a shell corporation in panama misrepresenting the availability of those funds and the record clearly demonstrated that he falsely represented to the divorce court that he did not have access to those funds what's to be tendered loss the district court properly found that the intended loss was four million dollars community coming was his community property so the district courts calculations began with the divorce court order that was entered in two thousand and eleven dividing the marital assets between the two parties the divorce court ordered it awarded the there the one point two million dollar ira in its entirety ordered her sixty percent of the remaining panamanian funds which was three feet or so sixty percent of the three point two million that the defendant had taken in cashier's checks to panama the district court also included in its entirety the assets that the defendant hid in coastal rica because those assets were never disclosed to the divorce court the defendant completely hid the fact that he had so when he drove to central america he had three point two million in cashier's checks he had at least five hundred ounces of gold in the car and he also had over three hundred  fifty thousand dollars in cash the cash and the gold he deposited in coaster reka the gold was in a coaster weekend safe deposit box the cash was invested in c d s a coaster he can bank account the defendant never disclosed the existence of the gold or the funds in coaster you get to the divorce court so this is your court included those amounts in their entirety because they were not covered by the divorce court decree and the court used the value of gold in two thousand and seven  half of that money has because the court found that he intended to reach retain that that money in its entirety the divorce court wasn't aware of it and that that was that the think i would need to check the referee record i believe it was in the neighborhood of five or six nine dollars the not understanding how you get close to four million dollars so the district courts have explained the district court's methodology for calculating the because they included one hundred percent of the costa rican assets is that the issue well i mean i think it's real simple when you take the global amount of assets which seems to be around in the forty five million he was entitle to do that right i mean not if he wasn't reporting the foreign accounts granted well he wasn't trying to do it he also had an obligation to yes that's right but that doesn't mean he's not time to do it that simply violate my while i don't report any crime and so the answer to just progress question is yes he was a title do that with the funds that belongs to him again these were marital assets and there was a and i think i think the question of the predicate for the question was pretty clear what i mean half the money was has i mean he may have have reporter requirements and whatnot but he could have taken his half of the money and and does this the court's giving one hundred percent of how does that square that i mean some significant portion of that money was here's the district court found that court used five hundred ounces of gold as the amount of gold that was in costa rica there was some evidence suggesting there was at least a thousand ounces of gold in costa rica so i would submit that the district court used a conservative figure amount but in the end the fact is evidence pointing to more money doesn't change the fact that this record made a finding as to how much money there was and that then becomes a fact that becomes you can't say to the alaska divorce court they'll ask a court could not have taken away either forty or fifty percent of those amounts correct i'm sorry that alaska divorce court could have included if he had  court what's the total amount it would exceed five million dollars ok let's say it's five million dollars she said the divorce court wants because it's sixty percent the wife forty percent sorry was one point three one point two i think one point two ok so yes if you take away the ira and again this isn't i don't want to speak out of turn because i think the divorce at the you know that the marital assets included other assets such as the family home and in anchorage so but just speaking about the funds that were at issue in this criminal case you have the one point two million dollar ira and then you have sixty percent of the remaining assets and there were how much that so if you take out the i that was three point two million in panama and then another close to one million in coaster eeg i think just under one million with the gold and under the current speculations money in costa rica in the value of the gold ever come back so that money in coastal rica the defendant claimed as a theft last he asserted that the lawyer who helped him set up the coast rican bank accounts absconded with that money i think fifty thousand dollars of it was transferred to pant to the panamanian bank account but the remaining three hundred fifty three hundred twenty thousand dollars and he ledges was stolen by his post are you going to turn away and nobody knows what's happened to the gold obstruction of justice and hansen and the sophisticated means enhanced meant arrived at a sentencing range of eighty seven two hundred eight months and the court determined that a downward variance was appropriate because of the defendant's age and health and collateral arguments that defendant raises regarding attorney client privilege the district court the record reveals the district court very carefully considered all of the evidence here determined that there was no attorney client that defended did not establish the existence of an attorney client relationship and that even if such a relationship existed the crime fraud exception would apply i would submit that all of the trial evidence regarding defendant's concealment of those funds supports the lied to government agents about his access to funds all of that was in the record the jury was fully aware of all of these credibility problems however the documentary evidence corroborated testimony about the defendant the documents show that the defendant was the only signatory on the panamanian bank account and that the defendant was directing that bank to move those funds around and that he alone the defendant alone could do that it wasn't sarah nello that instructed the bank in two thousand and eight to transfer six hundred thousand dollars worth of this question  was charged in the stock fraud case and in when he pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government he provided a list of bank accounts the government used mutual lateral assistance treaty requests to freeze those panamanian bank accounts and was able to repatriate the proceeds of the stock fraud using those and let requests and this was all happening in two thousand and from two thousand and ten to two thousand and twelve and twenty thirteen the government learned that there were some accounts that had been frozen that weren't covered by the m last request those are the accounts containing the six hundred seventy three thousand dollars the government contacted sir now low who said he wasn't aware that the he had assumed those accounts were journal works with the government to try to bring those funds back there's an e mail on the record where e mailing the panamanian bank requesting that they wire him the funds and that was all as part of his cooperation with the government but that was unsuccessful and so in tw fourteen law enforcement agents and usa and traveled to panama to try to withdraw those funds from the panamanian bank and the report of that trip was turned over to the defendant  essentially there was no the government didn't find any evidence that it was sarah no that was attempting to withdraw those funds rather the information they got from the bank was that it was a high ranking panamanian official who was trying to withdraw those fees remind me does that record reflect w miles doing now the record does not reflect i think he was scheduled to be sentenced after at some point after the defendant's trial was i'm not sure how long he was and in custody and that was a case out of the central district of california i can provide that to the court if you if you'd like to see it in any event the government did not have any indication that sir no it was the individual trying to withdraw those funds the government turned over everything in its possession and even produce a couple of additional memoranda of interview with the homeland security agent that went on the trip and the two i r s attachs based in panama who attended that meeting all of that was provided to the defense that government didn't fail to disclose anything in its possession and that the e mails that defendant provided suggesting that cerner was involved in withdrawing those funds simply do not sarah when he went with government officials and they left a statement from sarah instructing the bank not to release the funds to anybody else and stating that those funds were part of an ongoing criminal investigation in the united states in any event the testimonies are known as testimony about the six hundred seventy three thousand dollars was not material he had a long history of falsehoods that the jury was well aware of and one additional piece of impeachment evidence would have altered the verdict here especially when his testimony about the defendant was fully corroborated by the documentary evidence that he was moving these funds around he had control of these funds and his statements in the recorded conversations with her now i'm a clear that he statements of somebody who's acting in good faith and who plans to return the funds to the court or to his wife the district court properly denied the motion to suppress and properly or that the substantive reasonableness of the overall sentence was not appropriate the sentence was half of the minimum under the advisory guidelines it's roughly it was cut in half under the guidelines that the guidelines of course  horribly miscalculated what is intended last that was not shown by clear and convincing evidence we believe that the guideline for the wire fraud should have been a seven not twenty two or went over that number they came up with was was still awaiting sentencing because apparently he was still continuing to work for the government the idea that he ended up with time served in a case where we know he turned over as government evidence within a matter of days of being arrested means he actually sort of maybe only a few days for a link the criminal career as a penny stock money launderer and had a mania in corporations and fraudster and it's just so unfortunate dr dr bradner ran into this person because he was there looking for legitimate advice but would you end up in the hands of a penny stock fraudster who's been hiding money for people's money to hide it  to take money out of the country to ship away from the war yeah the first thing he testified at the close of the suppressed the first thing we did is ask him whether he'd broken any laws yet and it made it clear that he didn't want to break any laws because he's a doctor he didn't want to take the risk sounds a little bit like walter white pointing up with saul goodman in a chair for you you probably haven't seen breaking that have you know i don't watch