before we begin judge brown i like to say that we're delighted to be said it all with an old friend you're on the steven murphy from court michigan back down here you've got autumn time thank thank you very much yes and i don't mean to interrupt but let me i've been trying to squeeze this case down to the size of a peak and let me express how i see it and then you go from there and and the bank winds up with the property as a was they released the kennedys and took the property moved to these nominees and the bank wound up with the property anyway as that sort of a and and gulf coast release early and otherwise they'd been wiped out anyhow correct this was an effort to avoid the bankruptcy threat and i understand court took to keep the bank out of the debtor didn't get money at these closing correct and they that kennedy wasn't given the money now it's or he wasn't given any money he got he unloaded the properties without his l l c being being held responsible and and they were transferred back to the gulf south on its books they were non non performing assets and and they were placed in or so or whatever the procrit description to these nominee buyers who and those individuals were recruited by akon same cobb and they were individuals who they knew personally they were individuals who agreed to the deal because they were told was never proven about the loan applications one way or the other this is an after the fact that the loans were fully funded you know we had these hud ones created the government had a theory of falsity you know as the district court noted that wasn't is that four or five individuals can get together and devise a mail fraud scheme and conspire to defraud property from a victim and then claim there's no air insufficient evidence to support a jury verdict if a mailing occurs after all the plans have been made right now it's a sense of argument here i under a third right forty four to right which requires a causation relevant to be proven right the end is the means make justified or made the end well there's no case it's ever said you've got to carry out the scheme by specifically supporting or support submitting false information before the fact which is your argument with the argument is there has to a connection based on longer and under the supreme court analysis of the alleged falsities we're not talking about whether there's a material misrepresentation there has to be a college station of the event and here it was already agreed and fully funded before any document was made and no one noted the bar which read the documents this had known as i asked the question this way had the straw buyers refused to sign the closing down the closing would have gone through with i don't know because the monies were in the hands of the escrow people i would assume not but that's an assumption sale would not have been completed  what was the whole point of all these false documents because that's part of what the bank required was the documentation for the closing of the loans there you go but no bar or word knew there was anything thoughts judge prior to no bar work read any of these documents except cody on the hood one and the hud one is a matter of wall was not faults certainly contrary to what the borrowers had been told the terms were the borrowers claimed the terms were non recourse bank generated its own security agreement consistent with what its software program generated and it was with reports it that is where there is an abject failure of proof and that is what we have pointed out the counts two through five has no maker knew the contents of any of the agreements they signed the agreements were not faults that's an element of the offen five the liability is an aiding and abetting basis of theory the government see concedes actions didn't make anything none of the bar was new any of the security agreements were allegedly faults or not none of them read it they didn't read it because the monies had already been fully provided the loans had been funded i didn't need to read it they had been told that it was one thing when it difference of banks apart therefore there was no evidence to prove those counts but an intent to deceive because they weren't deceiving actions wasn't deceiving him self there is no evidence of back in spree pairing any in executing in submitting a false statement that it is an intent to deceive if you submit documents that say that the terms of the law and one day when you actually have a signed agreement with the bars that the terms were something else than their false documents their only false as to the borrower not as to the bank the bank was fully secure there nevertheless part there nevertheless false that's not going to be the d innocence to the offenses to which they were testifying about a course they did they wouldn't have done it if they knew what was really hot right well they had pled guilty and they were denied access to the that right there is that your client didn't know any of these people or give them the opportunity to reason to sign and understand what was going to make the fraud work well  any of these documents let me just briefly say as to count six the government admits that the property that there was no property rights on that lien going back to your honor judge show flits observation that's an intangible property florida law says that should be reviewed reversed and as to count seven they did a minute white why should why should that be reversed smith versus  which is a florida supreme court case states pretty out right that a lien is quote itself a species of intangible property and we know that under u vs shots intangible property supports conviction under the man bank fraud x and y are in the world would we reverse on that ground because under segment of this court  assert that that's what the cases but it doesn't judgment lien doesn't create an estate or right of property in the lands to which the judgment lien attaches is the language you're relying on but later in the case seaboard says what i just quoted to you flat out such a lien is itself a species of intangible property i don't see how you know around the as to count seven i offer the additional information found in that that a scheme to default proof that a material misrepresentation is calculated to deceive another out of money or property also in hansen of this court three three three fed third twelve seventy misrepresentations material if it has if it has that is capable of influencing the decision maker  it is addressed the filing of a document and the court house and been recounting alabama was not a red representation that's material as it was a public filing thank you i'll reserve the balance  may please the court counsel i think part of the problem we've heard here again today is that the defendant thinks he's the bank and the defendant is not the bank the defendant was the author of the scheme he was the puppets here he was  excuse me personally well the scheme i mean the bank took the but he took one hundred eighty four thousand dollars plus a just over and above what the loans were to pay those lines of credit so it benefited him it bunch of money on these condominiums that were obviously not worth what the banks were jolly sauter worth right right art so what how does the purpose of the float fraud play into the statutory requirement matter doesn't know it was he was he was he perpetrated the fraud and he was trying to do this to help him to help his friends to help the bank but the point is that he he had the scheme and the scheme was to take property as far as counts two through five false statements from capable of influencing the bank these men didn't have to read the any of the documents because they knew it was false they said the defendant knew we couldn't afford it the defendant knew we couldn't qualify for the loans of course i didn't make enough money to do get a one point two defraud gulf coast gulf coast would have had they filed the lean they went through everything with canada and they tried to get the loans to work they try to do everything they could and at the last minute there's nothing they could do they filed the liens in every place they possibly could any place a kennedy did business in any event any possibility to get any money out of mr kennedy they had the lease filed to protect their back when the defendant lied to them and told them that short sales don't worry me banks make decisions based on representations of other banks all the time that's how they were chemical  well gulf coast gulf coast bank had the lings i understand what what happens if the property is foreclose clearly and evaporates if it foreclosed yes but they still would have had a right if there were some money  kennedys might get some money right and they did or someone would have gotten money they didn't get any they didn't get any money ok but somebody there was there was a pot of money floating around and they didn't have to release their lane but for the lie they would not have released it and they may may have gotten some money anyway in any event they said it was material to them and if they had not known it was a true true short sale they would have not gone through with it and as you've indicated the mail fraud mr act and there are two hundred five thousand dollars worth of assets that the bank could have gone after and once the defendant released that that security on the lot there was nothing for the bank so there was an injury there th e government ms has just made the comment that in reference to counts two through five that they'd be in the bar was did not have to read the documents because they knew they were not qualified the documents are in question as alleged in the indictment are not the loan applications which would identify whether somebody is qualified or not the documents or these hud ones matter of law could not be fault and the security agreement ok whether you're qualified for the loan or not there's no win france to be drawn about whether the security agreement was with recourse or without recourse so that point is not correct getting it directly to the point of whether atkins got any money he got no money from this activity he did get a bonus that the board voted own after the fact a bonus that the board voted on by the way these loans after they had been made as well so i would suggest that there still is no evidence that the documents specifically the security agreement were submitted with an inten to deceive gov south bank i mean gulf coast bank no i'm getting confused myself in that regard we rely on the arguments