objective because of this in order to convict one of conspiracy the government must produce evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual charged with joining a particular conspiracy actually understood the breadth and scope of the conspiracy he's charged with joining without that evidence there is no proof that an actual meeting of the mines necessary to be guilty of that crime actually existed does he have to know the names of the jag your argument might carry some weight but this paper vehicle and his in his explanation of it and the whole purchase order thing in the moving business and nobody ever saw it including his wife i mean that's pretty heavy duty evidence that you guy is up to his elbows in an understanding of what's going on how do you differentiate this paper lexus or why doesn't that sink your client in terms of potential inference is as to what he knew and what he was involved in your honor i point to the three nothing else except this purchase order it turns out the purchase order was a bogus purchase order was concocted in order to try to cover the cover people's tracks where we have conceded in our brief that if the government had charged not had this issue to talk about but we think the question is showing that he's up to his elbows in a conspiracy involving insurance fraud in a paper lexus how does that show that he understands that there's a conspiracy involving over one hundred vehicles stretching across two countries a north american continent involving this number of transactions pushing out a windshield switching been placed with over twenty people involved this is a huge media conspiracy by the government's own description that is the answer is evidence his elbows in one scam involving a paper lexus does not allow the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he understood without more evidence without a different kind of evidence that he's part of them's comes from santa as far as it goes ok that's what we've said is that there's a parallel not to try to i'm using the case laci show what the facts mean in the you may get case those two people were up there up to their elbows in a drug smuggling scam and they knew the two of them were involved and they knew a guy named you one was involved and then you egger was friend who was going to smuggle the drugs was involved they knew four people were involved a new drugs were being smuggled and they were up to their elbows and that the court held this court held that was not sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that they knew about a train a pattern of four drug smuggling operations that's just for in this case we're talking about hundreds of scams that rascal supposedly knew he was joining in that's a conspiracy involving that many things that he knew he was joining and we're talking about over twenty people the case law because of the way those cases analyze the facts really does show that the facts involved here were not sufficient to allow the jury to leapfrog from a few scams and  to other people he knows and surmises are involved to this really vast conspiracy that the government should have been convicted of a smaller part of the vast conspiracy the government could have charged him with a smaller conspiracy the government charged him with one conspiracy and one conspiracy only a fraud far flung conspiracy involving two countries the u s and canada over twenty people over one hundred vehicles the government at one point said it was a one hundred sixty one's kind of sounds like you're talking about sentencing considerations not responsibility concerns absolutely not your honor the question is this presidents have made claims that it's as if the government chose to charge him with them does them and then produce evidence showing he was guilty of rape it's a different crime they did not prove him guilty of that crime of entering into that conspiracy this is why i focused on the what you're saying is that since curiosity that he may be attached to a limited one just or having to do right that he was a party the jury was properly instructed that they could only find him guilty in the jury listen to the evidence and following the instructions like this just like him again just like in daily the government chose to try roscoe who was involved in small handle three at most a very small stand together with what they described as the epicenter of this vast conspiracy was stuff an elegy moll who was involved in absolutely every single scam so we had i would estimate twelve further trial days of evidence and nothing to do with roscoe but it was all allowed to leach over and tar and so there's no surprise the jury found rescued guilty course of the record that we got in chambers but what was the source of that how did he come into being able to have title and then go ahead to apply for insurance and  e permitted to infer that your models knowledge was transferable to him to the extent that this is with which he's clearly associated with the daily they could have chosen to to charge the individual in daily with a couple of individual drug schemes instead of the whole drug distribution conspiracy the government could have chosen in brown to charge brown with one scheme to get money to th even above the statutory lending cap they didn't they chose to charge him with the entire conspiracy to back to bolster a failing us now the government could have chosen who might have to charge those two people with one scheme to help people smuggle drugs all the connection to the canadian side of this was up with the jetta the government itself said they don't know what was planned for the jetta what kind of scam the jetta was going to be involved in when roscoe had it because they seized it before anything happened and they had no evidence to say what was afoot with the jetta they showed things that had been done with the jet a before rusty got it they didn't show rescue knew anything about what had come before and they didn't show that russkies knowledge about the just showed again that he knew anything about a broad conspiracy over three years over a hundred vehicles he was simply found driving a car that was some part of this conspiracy and then the harley was even left to go on the harley was sitting in his garage an expert looked at it matched up the vin with some other parts of the markings on the vehicle and found that they've been it's been tampered with there was evidence that the harley was part of this scheme that if you falsified numbers from canada etc etc but there was nothing beyond roscoe having that harley in his garage that show that he knew anything about a scam with a harley individuals to criminal acts that are in fact part of a broader conspiracy and that will not get you home in terms of supporting injuries conclusion that those individuals have actually knowingly had a meeting of the minds to join that much broader conspiracy it's a question to some degree of scale it's a question of understanding the breadth and scope of what you're alleged to have joined in and having again being up to your ears and fully joining in particular transactions simply does not allow the jury to draw that conclusion now it's important to note that there's a couple of ways in which the evidence fails to show rest is knowledge and is the same number of people the defendant in daily knew about himself and to others that was insufficient in the daily case it's also the fact that ross was not shown to have known of the very large number of other criminal acts and transactions that were part of this fraud conspiracy charge by the government so it's on two different dimensions that roscoe's knowledge under this evidence failed to be approved by the government it's the number of participants who had no idea about the number of transactions and criminal act he had no idea about  now there's a few things that the government has argued in its response for you in an attempt to show that evidence really was sufficient to show iraq had a meeting of the minds and joined in this broad conspiracy we don't think those are very compelling the government  proven criminal acts to show the knowledge of the broader conspiracy and beyond that all they can really say is well he was friends with the guy he didn't just do a couple of scams or a scam he was friends with them he was housemates with them that is it simply adding their association to one or two criminal act and that's not sufficient the government pointed out that russia could have known there was an m t v insider and that doesn't show knowledge of a much much broader cast of characters that are part of this conspiracy to start with joining and the government has talked about the v records and really tried to sort of us springboard from facts about the m v d records that were shown at trial and the idea that ruskin must have known that there was what the government calls a canadian arms with a conspiracy  the government says if you look at the n p t records with expert knowledge about forged documents about canadian documents how they're supposed to look in alberta what should be in french etc etc you would know these are really well done and that shows somebody in canada is doing them and that roster must have known also that somebody up in canada stealing cars so that roscoe constructively knew there was a canadian arm for the conspiracy the problem with that they such a problem with that is that the evidence didn't show that roscoe actually saw these documents for one thing so he couldn't be charged with that kind of knowledge and with having drawn those kinds of things which which documents he specifically falsified m v d records related to the three documents the three vehicles he's connected to was done by a skilled forger or not and even if he knew it was done by a skilled forger he wouldn't have a basis to conclude it was anybody other than al jamal who he knew it was in on it who had forging canadian documentation tools in his apartment that had done it insurance brokers application that's the application was admitted into evidence and within that application is the vin number for the fictitious paper lexus that then number could only have come from name for this paper lexus which show he also would need to know more about the canadian side of and this is one of the fair inference just to be drawn from the evidence is that because  insurance investigators and law enforcement were best to getting that particular vehicle he was needing to come up with the fake invoice how he acquired the immediate his involvement why when he keeps throwing out one hundred cars there were thirty two vehicles presented to the jury some of which were actual stolen vehicles and some were the paper variety was with three of those thirty two roughly ten percent he also had two actual stolen vehicles and one paper vehicle which is really the way the conspiracy evolved that began the stealing actual vehicle some possessing and committing insurance fraud just two thousand and so he was caught in the act of by both the insurance side and law enforcement believe one of the judges asked about eligible creating it was created that there is a another arm of this conspiracy theories are reasonable inference can be drawn that having three vehicles in his possession all with tightly history in the immediate past from that there is a canadian side or at standpoint of it's picking up a car in two thousand another one in two thousand and one and now he's evolving like the others into doing the paper cars in two thousand and two artists a patient tracks the evolution of the conspiracy from real it and it's a reasonable inference especially in light of the fact that the jetta had a recent titling history out of the same canadian province and the harley that's in his possession also came from a callback province and so all three of those are visible in pursuits draw that outside of arizona there are others who are part of the process of changing the identities also the veins were fairly sophisticated and applies obviously in me in the release pending appeal comes out of your handy decision and that is that and they use the word that it has to rai far it's our position that on all three grounds and they're all interrelated they all basically weave around this notion of a multiple conspiracies versus single conspiracies for each one of the three main issues he's raising as far as informing the jury and the district court about the scope and breath and how the nature of this operation actually took place thirty two cars represented only three of which are specifically titled or in some way  the defendant but the broader conspiracy was something that was something the government was entitle to present and then near the end of this trial from the government standpoint very specific witnesses were brought in from the standpoint of an ex wife rose treated those other witnesses in fact a fair review of the record which show that the primary cross examination of every single witness including the ones that were pin allocation of the time is really much more of a forty sixty or fifty fifty share and therefore the counsel's argument that this was a el gamal trial in which roaster was a tail i think it's an unfair characterization  touches every single one of the thirty two admitted and you also have a canadiens tiger really that deals with the false canadian registrations and also with the many of the cars were stolen of the canada many of the vans that were that he has to possess vehicles one paper vehicle it all goes through the same corrupt m v d at the same type of everybody else is fraudulent canadian documents and his two two vehicles he actually  and believes he's holding onto a vine another one holds on to one of the elephants legs and believes he's holding on to a tree the question in this case is what is the evidence that allows a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that ross can do he was holding on to an elephant now there's a point that the panel has made about ross his participation tracking the evolution of the conspiracy the question is yes it may be able to stand back and look at all the evidence and say and this is a sort of a slip that the government some consciously makes repeatedly here of saying here's what the evidence shows here's what the jury knew here's what the jury could conclude all that is well and good the question here is what are the evidence allow the jury to conclude r he saw those titles if the evidence showed he knew that titles that showed ownership in canada really meant ownership in canada and why would he know that if he's part of a conspiracy if you knows it's forged documents why does looking at a title that says this document was from canada tell him it really was from canada it's forged it could be completely false the creation as far as he knows why does it where's the evidence that he knew if he forgery is well done and he knows it's well done that he knows that if it's well done there must be somebody in canada doing it and the government has referred to thirty two vehicles being in evidence the trial this was a conspiracy and tightknit page of more than one hundred motor vehicles and cycles he's connected in any possible way to only three and minimally to two of us all right thank you counsel will have a question for the government did you find that exhibit number specific problem that we have is that at least up till the moment we haven't been able to locate exhibit one thirty nine we don't know where it is and if there's a way between the two of you you could make a copy of xerox copy of that