attempt to collect an extension of credit we have to look at the content specific concerns raised by the sufficiency of the evidence claimed the elite attempted extortion required the government to establish that mr de donna had no claim of right to the money that he was seeking and that he had no claim of right but the context here is the relationship and the interactions between mr downer who was a sales representative and ray buck and his wife who did a small farm in maine archer angus selling beef that they were representing t evidence any agreement or industry practice that would preclude commissions after terminations where he was hired to expand the business and he did that i think we  release were the terms of the agreement right he said there were no terms that's not her original agreement and you know it there's additional balsom from thousands of dollars that i can prove that you do know me from that's not a conversation with a threat was made the threat was made in the next two well in the second and third conversations he's the first discussion the potential information was actually in the conversation with the other recorded conversation with mr peters but in the september third conversation the mr downer also said there's an argument from my side to argue if this ever went to court one thing i would be arguing is hard dollars that i told you emails were thousands and thousands of dollars that i can prove and he also was looking for mutual releases that would include non disclosure agreements and said he wasn't comfortable with the when she sticks and arrangements and laughed the right was  to look at all of the conversations as a whole we can't just pick out one and say ok that's it and i think that the second and third recorded conversation is clearly set out mr to donna and believes that he is owed money and his understanding that it's that it would be very difficult for someone not to see instantly this sympathize with my side of the equation that when all these facts come out it's to be more than that this strike against me donna is that i am verbal agreement with you to someone that i thought was trustworthy and he did and that he was planning on paying taxes and he was looking for a mail from him where mr bott said when he was talking about complaining about the timing of one restaurant payments well i'll be sure to smear his reputation any effin way i can and this is jess that i'm going to release truthful information that could affect your reputation is just recognizing that this is the kind of argument part blackening that bob would respond to and there was also confrontation  taken advantage of him and fired him after he had built up the business quite substantially if you actually look at the sales boxes i'm firing you because your sales are flagging into a lot in september are highest months well if you actually look at the figures that's not exactly accurate and you have what mr gadhafi could legitimately he was a perpetual basis for firing because he's built up this business and now he's telling him i'm only going to be commissions up until the day that i'm tommy you know and he could legitimately have a belief that he's entitled to more for his efforts in building up the business to this point and the dead the past will basis for this firing saying well it's declining when in fact it was not declining to the in the manner that it was describing would feed into this sense of unfair treatment how does the government you know claim of right and this is i don't think they can you might have a if you had a contract that states that set out a written contract that set out what the terms were and the someone is demanding something that's not in the contract that would be a case in which there was no claim of right and here was mr bott who didn't want a written contract mr de donna had you look at all they did have the figures and a lot of these most of these figures were developed by the bucks and that would give you a reasonable basis to say that that would be a fair settlement of the cla  of credit by extraordinary extortion it means and i think the eat government's theory in this case is basically saying that if you have any negotiations that are resolved with payment on a particular day that that's going to be construed as as an extension of credit and extend it it's not inappropriate to look back at its initial purpose and you know how far are you going to extend it maybe the language extend credit is extraordinarily b if part of the negotiation part of the this is the settlement that we are reaching is that you will pay me x amount of money on why date is that an extension of credit if that is the initial term and i suggested that it should not be that we're you here you have a series of back and forth that ended with the agreement that there would be a payment of forty thousand dollars and then it would be paid down it was offering installment payments and bob said no eight days and so that is the final that's the end of the as that you arrived out at the end of your negotiation should not be viewed as an extension of credit i mean none of the cases that but there is some suggestion that maybe if you sent a bill that that would be the timeframe from which you would look on here the timeframe is that the final date of the agreement set out the timeframe for paying in that  should actually be viewed as the terms of the settlement not an extension of credit and is that the money isn't due until that date that's right that the money was not the money was to be paid on that date and there was no further extension of credit after that date otherwise any time you have a settlement in a negotiation where the money isn't to be paid on that day you're going to have an extension of credit and surely that could not have statutory claims the first is whether there was an extension of credit nor are you and section eight ninety one one this was an extension of credit there was repeated to me and by the defendant that if the mr bott did not come up with a settlement amount within a week he would reveal information that continue to go on it alternately coleman aided because i do believe in in the final conversation there was an agreement the defendant demanded he needed forty thousand dollars he didn't he needed thirty thousand dollars he needed three thousand dollars to be able to clear thirty that certainly was one of the arguments that was presented to the jury and to the jury may have concluded based on that conversation that it was a unitary agreement there was other dollars and there is some sequent discussion about we cannot get that right away the defendant says i think you can come up with almost immediately and there's discussion and then that an extension of credit stores at me so it's not simply that any negotiation would involve a criminal violation of a party is what we're trying to do or part of what i'm trying to do anyways to distinguish this fin distinguishes this from supply the other aspect of the statutory violation or is it is in fact the extortion i mean we're not arguing that it's otherwise we're simply responding in with respect  i could just if the court's permission just briefly clarified i think on the first count the distinction that i think is most certainly here and that is that the jury recently could have found that the and repeatedly said that that information had the effect of putting could have the effect of putting the defendant out of business and that the defendant mr bott had to come up with his own settlement amount and it sets the potential damage that was separated from the isolated comments when he indicated that he thought he was due additional compensation so in the first two recorded unrecorded calls between the defended and mr peters the threat is made there's a new indication mr peter testified to that anything was stated about additional compensation in the first record of losing everything he does say at one point that there's additional compensation thousandth that i'm owed and if i have to ask for that truth i will again separating the two i think it was actually the aug twenty second email to peter's where he said that i'm willing to waive that thousands that i think i'm over in lieu of the settlement that i'm demanding the september within our party the defendant does say that he views this as a business development settlement the jury reasonably could have construed that as an after the fact self serving statement given the repeat and you have to assess how much your business is worth because it could all be gone