s what it found was that phyllis carter and as the person whose property was purchased to the loan had determined after the time of the transfer victim in this case is not even the government or the real good as he is he has extracted a portion of the principal value of her property and put it in his pocket and it's an absolute necessity in order to get that loan that she be vulnerable victim be put upon and put into this loop so that he can get the money by pretending to buy the property it sounds to me like those facts  ethics having an affair with her and then by the same time doping are up all the time i mean that's the course that may not be true and i understand he's he's not necessarily the biggest monster in the world and there are lots of things that happened in life that look worse on paper than they were that's what the court f the court did was it's tracked it's a terminations on the defendant's relevant conduct into a restitution order and that's why it's wrong because it's because essentially what the court did was they made a determination that she was a vulnerable victim in liable for that loan whether or not it's going to be the result of foreclosure on the property or whether or not it's going to be independently civil the liable if they can execute a long execute on the property that liability remains but as to what happened of course that you know as you've noted nevertheless the record shows that she is the person to whom the proceeds of the long were just burst and she made a decision even herself going in and making payments on his behalf which talks about basically instances in which there isn't a direct harm as this is far field to find both liable for the loan but also liable for it's a fact of leave not paying her  abaft that's how she characterize it that she wanted the money and he failed to pay her back a year and a half basically within a year and a half of her making a loan i'm fast wise in a ten year weighted connection and happens is he feeds her drugs and she is sort of zoned out on drugs as judge signal to noted at remember he forged her name to the closing documents in which judge singleton said it may not be because she wouldn't have signed them and maybe because she was too but the race was she pledges her house for a loan from the beginning some of the money used to go to him and it's all inexplicably wound up with the fraud it was a fraudulent loan of change to give him some money because he had some debts and she had no reason to want i don't think you can separate the causation analysis in that case where somebody made all the threatening letter and they said l a has mad in the health department we're all impacted here it's even much more directly connected if the court has any property as was accomplished through this application and she paid off a twenty thousand dollars note she was able to loan her friend samuel sure money that he needed she provided herself with forty thousand dollars in cash and she has retains legal title as well as physical possession of her property from which she's not been forced nor has she been making any payments with respect to a mortgage or any she made a decision to loan her friend the money she may have deceptive also that because of her dependence on drugs and because of her romantic relationship but she made that decision he did not interfere with her or seek her enjoyment of the one hundred seventeen thousand dollars that she received as a purchase price for that property nor is she standing in the position of being a true victim of the actual act of conviction this is not a scheme that's