would like to request two minutes to be reserved for about oh yes he may have it thank you your honors methodologically your honors this morning i like to begin with my sufficien challenges but a conspiracy into the subset of counsel and then a time permits also to address our argument about the special editions released vs or a pronouncement i think there's no doubt that a read of the trial record in this case shows that there were a substantial number of paperwork mistakes regarding the tracking of expenses checks disbursements taxes so forth by numerous people involved the characters at the trial most significantly by the late senator joyce and also by the bookkeepers working for him and to be fair there were certainly some paperwork mistakes fairly attributable to my client mr no does a and i don't run from that or i think the question to be decided let's start with the conspiracy count is whether or not the or guilty see enter respectively the piece of evidence that's probably most harmful to mr nor does it what i would call his big mistake regards the expensing of the loan this was the loan that was forgiven to the late senator joyce which would clearly have created a taxable event in that circumstance and there's no doubt that mr not does he neglected to account for part of the loan repayment dividend in the year two thousand and fourteen on the personal return there were corporate minutes that were submitted and yet unfortunately that did not make it to return that was a mistake on his part and yet your honour's evidence has unfolded over the course of the trial as i've read it there were three other clusters of wrong doing paperwork mistakes which i would submit did not sufficiently mr nor does he says the jury could find its requisite level of criminal santer st and foremost are these personal expenses this probably took up most of the trial testimony this is the fact that senator joyce ran a lot of imprimis more personal expenses through his c corporation the private school tuition and the trips to the caribbean and so forth and yet your honors if mr not doesn't this was not a tax evasion case this was your st filing conspiracy if he was trying to conceal this says that would not be taxable they simply did a horrible job all of these expenses in the book keeper of the two book keepers testified were very clear all of these expenses were tracked under this broad category of legal expenses and they didn't my client mr moore does he didn't run and try to put those who were nobody could ever find them all of those reported on the schedule c probably the most salient testimony i would submit in the entire trial is on page one hundred and fifteen of the case agents the nd day of the case agent's testimony where he admitted that in three of the four years because of how these expenses were reported on the schedule c you actually had overpayments of taxes and the one year the th year where you had the underpayment is only because this would draw from the happened before the age put some of the reply emails along with it but the most concluding sentence is this will have a significant effect on your return he's talking about the early withdrawal if anyone was trying to  to the jury which disagreed and at the standard on review here is whether it and the reason a poacher or a based on these facts could have concluded that there was a conspiracy so now we're not the jury your arguments are jury arguments do you want to tell us why no reason to boccieri could possibly have concluded there joyce had passed away before mr nor does he ever came to trial it wasn't like he was there testifying you know nor were there any statements about narced nor does it that they had actually that was a problem you had i think what your client did well just because i don't understand it or you do i think it's a little more nuanced than that in that the way the bookkeepers tracked all the expenses they called them legal fees so it wasn't as though there was something unique about loan i considered at the outset from how do you get from repayment of a loan to st clear did it end and then asking brian to create corporate minutes to declare the dividend that doesn't i would commend the court's attention to the testimonies of these two accountants and it was not a clear and middle it was a lot that was not clear the remote back and forth the many different subjects who created the corporate minutes but again just to sum up my arguments to sufficiency before but will stay with that the i think at the end of ten suggests your client asked someone to create the corporate minutes and it doesn't show who that created a rep but what possible justification would there be for creating corporate minutes to clear a dividend for the repayment as a repayment of a personal loan that would be enough for a finding of criminal intent but for the fact that all these expenses including that repayment at least the exception absolutely made it onto the schedule c so the fact that there were mirror images maybe slow shots shows sloppy paperwork but it doesn't go that next step to the finding of criminal c enter but i probably a momentary lapse in judgment the worst piece of evidence that the government had and yet we would argue doesn't go the rest to carry the validation of all four of the objects of the conspiracy st there's an email from nor josie to the bookkeeper asking her to make sure that she caught all of his personal expenses on the legal fees booking entry knows he then took that legal fees booking and terry and entered it on me to see court tax return as a business expense when he knew they were personal expenses corporation from the personal incorporate professional corporation and i don't see as how much i moved to it and the response from joyce is the maximum amount possible  ira to maximize ira and joyce was and all this works in concert because he was moving fines putting him on the schedule c that enabled him to use an s e p ira and that gave him large deductions years able to take eighty thousand a year in two thousand and thirteen and two thousand and fourteen tax free by maximizing well are nearly maximizing his contribution and his wife's contribution when his wife did not work for the corporation and the rollover again we have e mails where neither nor does he say that you can't do this you can't buy this privately held stock by taking money out of your ira without tax consequences and joyce responds to him saying there should be no taxes that this was a rollover and there dozy reports creation of an ira and those he had no information that had been properly rolled over zero information and then again those emails are attached in the back of our brief and finally on the personal loan well you judge discussed it thoroughly that that he expense this personal loan and not only did he expense a personal loan there was one hundred thousand dollars that he reduced his personal lo and that didn't make it even onto the schedule c it just vanished he just reduced he just cleared his two hundred thousand dollar dividend and part of it one hundred thousand just went away it wasn't reported at all it just his personal lo you both bookkeepers testified that they were not experts and had not prepared tax returns so they were bookkeepers but they weren't tax experts if you look at these e mails there's numerous you know nor does he directing the bookkeepers how to treat certain items and what to do for example checking whether you missed any personal expenses and so there's very clear evidence that the bookkeepers were doing what nor does he told them to and that's what the bookkeepers testif they they just simply did what joyce and nor does he told them to i also want to point out that the district court gave an instruction to the jury that nor does he could rely on joyce and the information provided by the bookkeeper but if you had knowledge that was contrary to the information they were providing or he had you know that he couldn't simply ignore any other knowledge that he had and i  so that the jury was instructed and they rejected the idea that this was the fault of the  bookkeepers anything where their counsel not unless you have any more questions on special conditions or allegation that the bookkeepers were part of the conspiracy then of course what does that say about how the government could prove up a conspiracy between my client and the late senator joyce i think that argument is made even more strongly when one contrasts the situation that the prosecution of mr not these of the senator joyce is why i mean if the contention is that mary joyce took these very large contributions to it she was completely untitled because she did not work at the company i think it raises again the question that accountants are often in the situation that they have to catalyze information they receive from other sources and i think the way the government through this of the trial was they introduced the late senator joyce a state ethics forms which of course  statements by him as to where his wife worked or did not but of course there was no evidence that mr darcy ever saw the state ethics form so i'm not really clear how they tied together certainly mr senator joyce did work in real estate  mean i'm sorry a husband has no idea where his wife his working is sal your argument no your honor i'm sure that most i have that she is not working for a particular entity to chase climbing and i are corporation he should quote move to marry you doesn't say how much you are and how much you worked it's how much she's moved to mary and the response from joyce was moved the max possible in order to you know maximize the ira so i think that's evidence of conspiracy regarding the false attribution of the wife's income thank you thank you that's including the argument in this case attorney credits or an attorney mean you can you should disconnect from the hearing at this time