that judge batchelder is participating with the oral argument this afternoon but she is doing it by audio only but she is here and i wanted to assure you that we are prepared for your case today that we have read your briefs attorney for the defendant appellate jerry avery it's often said and i'm sure often thought that an insufficiency of the evidence claim is simply a cut shot or a throw away type arguments are supreme court however in jackson versus virginia hasn't compass the test when it made it clear that sometimes a properly constructed jury may convict when it can be said that no rational trier of fact would have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt this sufficiency tests and this argument must have teeth it must mean something in case this it must give our judges the strength to be the gate keepers they're required to be against a lot wrongful convictions and this court needs to remind the lower courts that this is an important role here it is the issue insufficiency of the evidence here the judge almost took the case away from the jury but as unfortunately often the case with all due respect to the district court who i admire it backed off and left it to the jury i was there when the  its verdict i was surprised and i noticed the surprise on the judge's face while the jury got it wrong here in the lower courts should have granted my motion for a new trial the defendant here the appellant gerry which she was charging or rather she was a check signer at the company why was she a check signer because her main boss although she had many which came out in trial her main boss to santos who ultimately pled guilty her main boss lived in florida she lived in michigan where the company was checks needed to be signed when she was directed to have them process and get them signed eventual company did not do well and a few quarters of payroll tax was not paid the company how to milly went bankrupt the i r s agent missed and one did one thing government's theory rested upon is a verse response to that inquiry as well as another ng or the voice mail and decayed it that her bosses were responsible her they were looking for who was responsible for the payroll taxes for buses or many bosses she gave them many names but she didn't give him to santos name why he looked at florida she explained that through her letter from her lawyer ment furthermore she had told the i r s when they had later asked for some documents that she didn't know how to change those documents simple as that at the time they made the assessment of over two hundred thousand dollars of the secretary she was working at a fitness center on an hourly basis let me ask you counselor i agree this is a this is a concerning case but why are we in the situation that the government says the voicemail is misleading intentionally so you say it's unclear or are we just in a is that you have multiple and or true interpretations of the information that my client provided and let's go back to the gate keeper approach we aren't criminal setting where cases have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt this isn't a preponderance standard so if you have two interpretations and they're just even said that in her answer or in her argument an opinion about the evidence she said and i quote the court appreciates that avery and the iris may have conflicting interpretations of it raised voice mail messages and the letter sent just recognizing there's different interpretations that's what a gatekeeper h anyways back to my art with these statements that she made led to an indictment and indictment of a secretary the government seized upon miss a st words in particular that she did not know how to obtain certain records mind you this is based on voicemail and a letter from an attorney not an interview with signature cards corporate documents corporate minutes the judge even said and i quote what does that mean not sure how to get it who do i call up could it be mailed do i have to get them in person what does that mean i'm not sure how to get all these other things so it isn't the judge was time the government in my argument that it's not clear she further sat another plausible told them to look at to mr sanchez she wasn't trying to hide who he was he was and also not the government argued in response to all that while she had access to online banking every access to online banking is not an answer to what the what the i r s meant by the questions and what she meant by her answer quite frankly this opens the door to charging any person who works for the corporation and response to the i r s about the most basic of information or make simple inquiries makes them subject to an indictment based on statements that are subject to more than one interpretation statements that are never vetted statements that are never there by the air rests with other people  corporation it becomes open season on book keepers and secretaries it was shown at trial that ms avery's simply and sell read employee she was simply a secretary it was proven she had no ownership interest in because it started arguing your emails it backed away from the statements alone mrs avery and starr emphasizing that the emails somehow prove because she was not a recipient of emails that she was somehow  involved with the finances this too is in for insufficient st my other argument or my co argument in this brief that a lot of the e mails were from a company probably a company prospectus which perspective which is a software company that was opened after the bankruptcy of integrity were just santos continued working and she continued work not hourly basis for him and had nothing to do with integrate just because she was assisting in that book keeping and was given knowledge of some financial information by virtue of being c c to copy down emails and talk to him to write out or sign certain checks and give them to certain people does not give her knowledge of why payroll taxes are paid or not paid and making the decision of paid paying those taxes or not and deciding to protect anybody or herself because she the united states than it out to noon your honour's douglas running to the united states this case is about the defendant lying to the i r s to protect her friend and benefactor among the corrupt acts charged was dependen how did he explain the he is lying that that statement in the letter in testimony she he said that that he did base that statement on her telling him that avery excuse me that de santo was in florida however he also said that all the information in the letter was based on information that he got from a that she reviewed a draft of the affidavit corrected a spelling error signed it under penalty of perjury and returned it to him to give to the i r s so as the district court explained there was no evidence that he interpreted her statements differently than what she can bait and it's also notable that she lied to her own attorney about the sandoz roll out who directed what bills should be paid here and that's the  nd statement that i was referring to you that she said to the i r s which is all she knew is that someone in a town in was hand in or checks to sign the evidence including the testimony of her coworkers and her own e mails prove that those statements were false and that the defendant made those false statements with a corrupt intent mr de santo was deeply involved in the day to day affairs and made the key decisions about pain pills and she well knew accurately reflects which in my day or was that she was protecting dissent and that dissent toast was fully and and and you know if that's the case ringback i'm struggling with the fact that officer allen never even interviewed to santos and instead turned to his secretary and said this is the man you're protecting and yet in the course of  you're investigating her because she's his secretary and yet she is now responsible for those audience that your own brief say as he wasn't responsible for i'm just struggling not and not a decision maker and she's the one that's charged on can you help me understand this your honor this criminal case is about her lying to the i so the question of who is responsible for the payroll taxes that's something different that would be left her responsible it unless you're charging her left her responsible for that money as a as a matter of restitution yes but again this is because she was she lied to the i r s repeatedly we can go  job got it strike one voice mio and one letter from her counsel or two letters from her counsel two letters from her counsel the nd one was a slightly different version of the st one but it also included affidavit from mr de center and so that's the core her let me look at the you know i looked over we don't even have the voicemail but we have any canceled checks not sure how to get all of the other things requested  ahead she had made several statements in these letters and in the boy's mail better demonstrably false statements like all she knows is that someone hands her checks she well knew that descent who was running this company is santo is calling the shots here she knew who was but she not only lied to the i r s about it she lied to her own attorney who said that's what he was trying to figure out when he put these letters s civil investigation yes  but again if there are numerous statements in it's not just the voice mail even if you decided well we're not sure about this voicemail there are numerous statements in the letter that are  like she did not participate in discussions over which bills would be paid and it's not a matter of her just being copied on e mails she's sending e mails to the director of finance aine for example in the saying she didn't participate in discussions over which bills were paid and similar statements were no camillia question which bill to pay or had to pay them what she's been instructed to do it she's just telling them to pay the bill and didn't the other people who worked in an integrated testified that the bosses the owners she would not have paid anything unless she was told to about the bosses or the honors there was some testimony of that fact but the question here is whether she's lying to the i r s about what she knows and she clearly is she's claiming she didn't participate in any of these discussions she didn't know anything about finances or we've got this big record of all these emails where she was in the middle of all these conversations she was leaving in discussions about what bill should be paid she was accessing things like could you give me a truth to the i r s or not the question is here is whether she is obstructing the the i r s is attempt to collect these on pit payroll taxes in by telling them that she didn't participate in these discussions she's lying because she did she was in the middle of all these discussions she knew how to get things like bank statements she had access to a dropbox folder called bank statements she was preparing to detail the income statements according to or only e mails she was putting together balance sheets she was in the middle of conversations about the unpaid unemployment taxes and pulling up information about the payroll and what employees employees w two forms and their withholding taxes she knew she had access to all of this information and was telling the i r s i don't know anything about the overall finances when at the same time she was doing this she was e mailing people like suspenders and a santo and preparing detailed income statements the problem here is is that she is actively line to the i r s when they're trying to figure out who's responsible for these taxes so to the extent that she was assessed and should not have been this is partially her fault because he's aligned the i r s if she just said that the person who is responsible the person pulling all the strings here is my boss the guy i work for every day that's who you should be talking to and did she send an ass today did where santos of seven people who from time to time made various decisions and even her own attorney mr new show also testified that that didn't tell him what he was trying to figure out which was who was making the decisions  so generically in there were people who made decisions including to santo and seven other people but we know from the testimony at trial the people who generally made the decisions about paying bills was number one santo in the decision not to pay the now counsel mentioned evidence is not a basis for ursule the evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as this court stated in the seat case in the stone case it isn't the mere fact that the district court might have been struggling to understand theory or understand the evidence or even misapplying the relevant standard during the argument doesn't change what the standard is here which is the jackson versus virginia standard which we defer to the jury's verdict and i would point out that the district court did ultimately apply the correct standard in  are just to point out a few more examples of statements that she made the i r s in her communications she made said things like she didn't work in the accounting department when ron walters the director of finance testified at trial that she did she said that she was not involved in the hiring or firing of employees but there's an even on the record of page one hundred and ninety two dollars the appendix where she talks about interviewing a job candidate taking notes on that person's resume in addition to the some of the statements i mentioned earlier she said that she  e creditors was not part of her job again all those e mails going back to that demonstrates that it was your honor i see my time is is running out i would just point out again that this case is about the defendant lying to the i r s to protect her friend that's why she was charged and convicted here the jury heard all these arguments that counsel is making here and it decided to reject it found that the evidence established that she was guilty in order that jackson versus virginia standard which should not be nd guessing the jury's decision here thank you all right thank you mr rennie any further questions judge batchelder power issue really a secretary i mean she's got all these different titles that people refer to or as a as an assistant or whatever i think she's got a lot i mean is she there she have a title as a secretary or is it kind of ambiguous what are titles it's kind of ambiguous judge and i don't think that anybody really knew other than she was there at her desk and mr santos called her one of many boston is the two that pled guilty among others is to stand toast and subpoenas which proves that those are people with the responsibility being told to pay a bill you know my god rest to so my husband he'll think used to tell me to pay bills and i used to say but how there's no money so you know i don't see how that gives you responsibility or decision making power if you ask something to be paid further it was shown that to cooperate but you can't cooperate if you don't have any information and you can't cooperate when you're innocent so it was a problem and we went to trial the government had to change their theories in their argument because they really didn't know what they really had on her this isn't a civil case where there could be a couple theories and you have to find which one is perhaps more believable this is beyond a reasonable doubt your theory has to be beyond a reasonable doubt prosecutor one of your cooperation because this is part of a much larger pace where there's some lawyers and some doctors that are are soliciting cases for their selves by bank police reports or exit reports before they're available it's big my cl completely ten jansha all this got wrapped up because this integrated got charged and they thought she had information it went on and on and on and i was the trial lawyer i'm asking this court to speak out provide bindery boundaries set apart for cases that have a minimal or questionable evidence or two theories when when when you when you need to marry yourself to one theory of your what you can prove and that's what the jury needs to find i think the jury was very confused specially since it was given e mails from different companies that had nothing to do with integrated and nothing to do with differentiating roles whatever they may be  just that because she had access to bank statements means that she knew that that's what they wanted her do to email them or mail them or see them you would think there would have been ongoing conversations my real surprises trial because was feared miss allen ticket stance i r s agent that we think is awesome with powers and how little she did and how little knowledge how her own superior which came out as evidence question tur occasion and why she was going forward and ultimately the next thing we know my kinds libel for over two hundred thousand dollars which is wrecked her life and her ability to get financing and other things in life a a person who had no interest in a company so to to do such a minimal investigation take a couple words that are said and try to interpret them and then bring it to trial and throwing a bunch of emails and a bunch of other companies and make it look like a big conspiracy is going on with this woman who sits at a desk and takes calls from mr de santo those is shameful and it's a case