i agree with you that that could be a purpose but in mediate in the in the twenty prior transactions executed by ten or eleven the individuals were not cashing out but they wanted for example promptly quoted companies apparently have easier access to financing and that was what the trucking wanted to do they wanted to finance the purchase so they wanted to be publicly quoted is what the record reflects the point i would like to emphasize with regard to the granting of a new trial it's evans is that he was properly convicted of the charge conspiracy and was not entitled to a new trial even if he did not know of the would submit that is just sort of opens up the curtain to show that that the creating and the shell and the selling of it for reverse mergers is a big problem in the markets t are to the government regulators to determine whether a corporation gets publicly quoted they lied that made was widely distributed among various shareholders evans and tanner placed the stock into the initial private placement investors who were friends and family an acquaintance largely a for one cent a share six months to a year later when the shell was sold evans needed that shares back and he would state sell me back the shares they would get two cents a share and they would double their money typically that pays that excuse me five hundred dollars for stock six months later i get a thousand dollars back and you know there were times when tanner nevins failed to sell the shell so didn't ask for the stock back but in may to aid in an earlier transactions they did in fact sell the shell when they got the stock back from the initial private placement investors they did not tell them turner nevins did not tell them that they were in fact the purchaser so that is immaterial mission to the private placement investors and he testified they didn't know that saturn evans were buying their stock  mate if they had known maybe it was controlled by ten or novice counsel i'm not connecting on your argument let me tell you why i thought what i was supposed to be listening for was why the judge made a mistake that he should be reversed for giving front because the judge reversed looks to me as though it's a discretionary judgment he can make it in the interests of judgment and he thought that that evidence had a case to discretion to do that and i'm just not getting it i mean a lot of what you're telling me now it's kind of like if you're an argument and well yeah maybe so but it does a good at the question that's in my mind but the judge  ok that's the part that the judge said ok i don't believe that at this point in the point that i'm arguing to you today and even if the facts are as the judge believed  selling of made a link doesn't do it for me i guess i'm linked to every felon i ever sentenced because he was only one room removed from me we were within ten feet of each other  room what evans did was he sold his stock on the open market for seven dollars a share prior to the merger with c s t trucking right so what does the evans know at that point he knows that we have a in that case the court in fact interest whether or if the facts were as viewed by the district judge whether there was manifest injustice not that the defendants should have been convicted in that case you had three gunness who were charged with the per se price fixing charge and the court looked at and say if this dentist got together trial yes he did hear them yes he did think about them but what's telling is that in the government's motion to reconsider after he had regular i think that's kind of like you're on the bench you're talking about a lot of things that came out but at the end of the day that wasn't the great image of your decision in fact it wasn't even really any part of your decision and we know that we have evidence in the record to show that for example the judge states from the beginning i really question should whether i should have done this that was long before you ever heard of these  correct yes he also said he had grave concerns when this was going to the trial going to trial based upon this disparity of the evidence so we know before the state is came out it was on his mind and then you conclude by saying he said i knew i was going to rue the day that i didn't do the severance so you know from the beginning he really questioned it and then we also have that when he rolled through his mind as a human it's a possible if you hear if you hear statements they are in your mind as a judge he was able to separate this and think about it and deliberate not just when he made his decision on the motion but on the second go round after the government called them on it and the government called them on it in their motion reconsideration i think you are making the mistake  these things so he had the opportunity to digest that so either the judge is lying when he says that he didn't consider it  did in both the hearing and then on that his order after the motion three consider he stated i really questioned the woman she was a widow she was all over the place on memory i didn't think she was credible in that sense he said he questioned ruggieri l because he was a crook and he really questioned this phone call and he was within his that as well but we thought it made a mistake and reliance on their position that's correct i mean he really you could see through the case the judge was struggling with it i mean there was two times buddha lay came up and he held on and i don't believe big stands for this proposition that any coconspirators is out i think it stands for the proposition that you trial rule thirty three in the five elements set forth minute ok let's take the gist of judge at his word believe everything he says and he said one of the reasons i'm granting the trial is because of variance and at page twenty eight of our opening preached we demonstrate that variance was so it looks to me as though you're overstating what he says so that you can show that it's wrong well i'm just i guess what i'm just i'm attempting to persuade you is that canada granting new trial the court discussed something there was no reason to discuss because it wasn't raised in the first motion if you look only at the first motion note and if you take the court at its word that you put blinders on with regard to chandra's post verdict statements