s these are often referred to as more tax fraud cases because many of the people but not all of them who participate in these particular filings were members of a religious faith based on the  were elderly homeless cared for people with special needs were particularly ignorant and that these people were misled while mr walton knew what he was doing that the people that he helped were misled into doing that he was at the court also concluded that mr walton was a leader whereas everybody else that had ever been sentenced in the northern district of illinois was a follower none of them had helped others do the sorts of fraud  the judge also indicated that mr walton did this in order to get a religious ties which the court found to be cynical ironic in an aggravating factor and they the loss in this case of sixteen million which was a negotiated stipulated amount was so much higher than any of the other lost similar cases that you know on its part the government had provided that that he couldn't base relied were provided by the government they weren't in the racket record many of them were disputed and many of them turned out to be inaccurate and but many of these facts we didn't even hear about for the first time intel facts that were important it at least as i read the transcript in combination with one another were the leader point and there was a leader there was an organizer leader enhanced in this part of the guidelines was there not that's correct your honor and then stimulated the second point was the money is how big a role did you play because it's a big it's a big difference to say i helped a handful of people and i was involved in hundreds of different tax filings and that is where the government when the court asked the guy or meant you know what who how many people did he help they said we have talked to interviewed or had in the grand jury seventeen other people and they all identified mr walsh as the one and only one who helped them that was not true they only talked to nine people of the seventeen and who had interviews and those interviews were in the record and it's from those interviews we think that the government then begin asserting you know special leaves people that were homeless of the government finally admitted it i think in this brief and if you go back into some of the stuff that's not in the record after the sentencing we were able to piece together the oh i think it comes up in the government sentencing memorandum which is also not part of the record than a thousand fraudulent more sacks fraud prosecutions and dozens of prosecutions that nobody else has been prosecuted was played any role in it as a leader or organizer and the government i think was just they were caught off guard because they they they said at first they said not to our knowledge and then they said well we can verify that no one got the same enhanced may well that doesn't mean they weren't leader organizer that it which is what we've said that what you shouldn't listen to any of only responsible for two point one million dollar loss but we later found out that in print pleadings in her case the government had said she was responsible for or point four million dollar loss well they didn't tell the court that prior to the sentencing same with a gentleman named der i'm sorry to interrupt you it's at the end of the day it all came in two months under right the low end of the advisory range and am i misreading the sentencing transcript to in substance just say  you know mr mr walton did bring other people to this scheme and that's what differentiates him from a lot of the others i mean he recruited other people to file false tax returns and the only one a lot and other words a lot of the points you're making need even if you need credit that they're literally true i mean how to really impact anything here because you're not contesting that he was recruiting others into the scheme your your honor the only thing on the record is that he said he precluded quote others and that he only identifies with one other person and and and that's it and yet the government's stood up and said seventeen others what we think others could mean three or four or five or five of them got prosecuted and i think that's correct your honor but but the no dispute he says that this defendant well alert seventeen people under criminal activity well there was a dispute and because that's if you go back through the transcript we did say it it addition that we disagreed with with some of that we said we don't even have information about all these people that's the last thing that we said at the sense in europe the government is was you referring to information about the seventeen others that had never been provided to us it turns out they didn't even have it because not all seventeen were interviewed but at the sentencing they said we've talked to seventeen people they said it was him and only him and here are some factors about it your honor we ultimately we think that this should just be sentences that were far below and judge durkin based on representations the government may decline to provide that kind or even consider that kind of sentence for mr walton and we think for that reason his due process rights were violated i will say whatever time i have district court are part of the record on appeal and so in this case that would include the parties sentencing memoranda documents have been filed with the district court and it would also include the government's version of the offense which was attached to memorandum of the fact correct judge there was it was along with the plea agreement there was a factual basis there was the government's version of the offense that was approximately seven months before the sentencing hearing there was the government sentencing memorandum that was filed approximately three to four and again another representation made that among these seventeen individuals were individuals who were enticed to join the defendant's religion to join his temple and part based on misrepresentation that the bill raising objections to particular assertions that have been made by the government and by probation and yet at no point does the defendant object to the assertions that are raised today one that some of the individuals that the defenders assisted were economically vulnerable and two that some of the seventeen individuals were enticed to participate in this kind of fraudulent behavior because of the defendant interviewed by the government is that an apples to apples or apples and oranges comparison well i think it's a bit of a red herring i mean first of all the defendant says the government must write the district court and asserting that seventeen individuals were interviewed and that this was another piece of new information presented at the sentencing hearing but i'm page eight of the government's version of the of the government is very specific that they interviewed nine individuals and of those nine individuals each i don't have five hundred as the individual interview represented that nine or interviewed was presented in the government's version of the offense some explanation of how some of the nine could account for the other eight was also part of the government version of the offense but i think what jaja and that's the intended right and i want to focus a little bit on that intended loss because i think another thing another source of confusion here is that the defendant is comparing apples to oranges when talking about various in a different court case the number that's actually were or to their isp or mine well what the defendant is not accounting for is the fact that under the guidelines intended lost cannot account for duplicate defendant was the only leader organizer for purposes of three b one point one amongst the twenty three defendants that were laid out on that sentencing comparison chart just the defendant argued to the court quite vigorously that someone might miss cahill should be considered a church considered at least informally as a leader organizer and the district court noted that i think they don't have the particular even recognizing your argument that they might be leaders in organizers in some capacity that still leaves approximately twenty two other defendants on this comparison chart who were fairly character madison the government went over on theirs all right thank you your honor just to be clear at the sentencing the government said that they had interviewed so all of the seventeen others or had they come into the grand jury and that all said wall and nobody else is a quote from from the government's presentation assisted them that that is what they set and that is and that is far different from what they said in the government version where the government version just simply says we've interviewed nine people here here's people that we've interviewed and and we believe that they've provided information that could be useful if it's important to remember in terms of what is the record before that the district court we're talking about due process we're talking about the government bearing the burden of proving the specs of the sentencing which they can do via direct examination where we have a chance to cross examine if none of this stuff was presented and we would submit that pursuant to seven memorandum are not part of a record consistent with due process when it's disputed particularly when it's disputed ultimately none of the facts were in the record including about the seventeen others in addition we just talked about what the government said it sentencing about these other people that have pled guilty i'm quoting from the government's presentation they said the individuals who have previously pleaded guilty or have been sentenced or gone to trial and been  courts were not leaders they were not were going to answers they were temple members following the instructions of mr wattles or someone like him and it was only later that the where it said did any of these people get a leader enhanced meant work lead organizer he has been and they said no but initially they just said he's the only leader an organizer to be prosecuted and sentenced thus far and you should treat him differently and we think the court did treat him differently but they shouldn't have because i court had the whole picture they would have seen that he was really more similar to some of these people that have been sentenced before and that back and forth we've had today this also that happened before judge dirk and it didn't because a lot of it came up