would be on the person writing well if you set your money's gone people be running right to the authorities but telling me your money is not gone it's just not available is certainly seems to for some people that would say ok correct that's right ok so so your point that people really word deceived by this doesn't really help us does it because the question is do you send the letter not whether you have the intended effect know but whether it did in fact have the opposite effect this is the point i'm suggesting i don't see where you get that out of mark one taken from us from way so i'm not suggesting again that that it had to at a jury on that i'm sorry if we don't if if if they reasonably can be if if if you take it and the inference that they make could be lolling then that you botched on that issue in front of the jury i mean we have to basically say as a matter of law on these facts with all inferences from it it cannot be lonely letter but if it didn't have the intended effect then it's not a glowing letter no i'm saying even if the forward to conclude that this in fact was a woman whether right or position is it still doesn't matter because it was sent after th facts are roughly these the perpetrator stopped collecting money stopped asking for new money a period of time passed then a law a letter was sent out and the court found that because this team had been quote stopped that the letter  precisely i mean the basic facts in terms of whether or not it's there was a stoppage and that knowing what it was that got those are what the courts are actually discussing those cases and that's what they came up in tanky one of the issues said you know to the extent anyone saying that that that no one wants is now a bright line rule as opposed to two or three years that we have found you know it is too late that there can't be a right but  fits within the the language a very case right that you're talking about where the court said it was appropriate to consider that it's absolutely appropriate for this court for you for the court to consider the length of time the court also h hand what was the evidence as to why he sent the letters in the record while the evidence is in the letters themselves and then we have reaction from the various and interest so that's where the people were amongst the totality of circumstances determine yes it was shortly thereafter and it asked for more money so yes a jury could reasonably determine that it was really just another way of trying to get additional folks into but in this case couldn't a rational jerk have concluded that your client was trying to get more funds based upon the language of some letters i don't know you met and they did not ask for additional in fact he said you know we're not accepting anything more all of your current accounts are frozen and any current pending transactions are done and i it and actually that's not true either based on the facts of the case and the circumstances and i'll start with you can look at the e mails in the testimony of the victims they got these letters in the remember in december of two thousand and eight and in each of these letters the fan is saying i'm working with you i'll take legal actions for your if we don't get our money back just be patient work they don't go to the authorities and they don't start doing anything in till two thousand and nine after every some money in the investor account not enough to it paid off the investor by any means but there could have been some money there and instead of the defendant at that point giving investors money or if the investors had gone to the f b i and instantly there could have been some recovery from the back which we would also say is further evidence that the scheme was ongoing at the time but out of a minimum it did lol that they did keep them from going and although january two thousand and nine seems like a short window after november and december of two thousand and eight it's still enough time for the defendant to keep using their money and do and his old purpose was about and i want to point out that only to be the words directly in the november and december two thousand and eight letters if you look at exhibit fifty impetus of those letters were in october of two thousand and eight right before these letters came out that event basically starts telling the investors that they're not getting their interest payments they start realizing there might be some issues with the funds mainly because  victims make them believe everything is fine nothing to see here it's ok i'm going to get your money your money still with diversity the same life you've been telling them for to get the money in the first what he's continuing to tell me don't worry i'm stuck in a in a trade offshore we're going to get your money back and so forth and so at that period of time while they say now he can't take anymore investor money there's nothing in the records and he's stopped purposefully taking money his ability to collect money versus actually the money maybe true and trying to buy one or two very different things there's nothing saying that he specifically stopped and there's actually evidence to the contrary as a general rule you mention in your question in the letters talk about continuing in his new phone how they can invest their money in his new fund going forward he even says how in the same question the answer is how will i stop this from happening again and he talks about how he will invest their money going forward no longer going to use before us market and you use other different investment vehicles with new investments the undercover reporting with the f b i agent in the defendant in january two thousand and nine he still talks about what he's going to do with the money he is only taking a credit investors how he makes money and then that same undercover reporting in general that he made to himself out of the funds the last large scale payment was in january two thousand and nine after both of these letters went out in january two thousand and nine he writes himself a check for ten at the money and how we spend the money and even after the ten thousand dollars i just point out at that point there are still thirty to forty thousand dollars left in the account and he uses it to travel travel with what appears to be his family because there are multiple  tickets purchased through the airlines and so you see him using personal expenditures out of the account so it's not just the large check you write songs off he still using the investor money to pay myself well into the night when the when did he i think you indicated that he had basically bought out an investor when did that occur there was one investor that he bought out i have to check those but i was after was that after october no no no ok you know we would have been in may rights seven hundred dollars six i think it's six one hundred forty nine dollars or something in that but each month in december january february or november december january he has three more interest payments to investors even after the if we were to discount the effect or legitimacy of the lulling letters that there would still be more than enough for a rational juror to convict him of everything charged here absolutely and i actually think opposite but it supports the other side of the coin that when you look at sam's inch mark lane man right tampa and every one of them what you're looking at is to see if all the monies are received letters themselves means a scheme is ongoing and that that's exactly what we have here is the classic letters telling the the clients all is well no no need to go to the doherty's no need to call the litigation to look at what i'm doing just be patient wait for me to fulfill my promises and that's exactly you don't even have to on earth from his letters in the summer two thousand and eight of what he wants he tells them be patient with me i will se credit the same argument of in that case was they had the opposite effect of what we wanted the people got along and the supreme court said that doesn't matter we're not looking at what happened we're looking at what was the intent in the design of the defendant and we can see from his own words in his e mails to terry kelly two days before this letter what is intent was i want to make the investors not seek litigation not go to the so i have a i'm curious about something charges in actually the exact words are a continuing scheme to defraud and the dates that were given were all seven when he first started collecting money all the way through bo nine when he had the money and he was putting the account it was always charged proved and given to the jury in which they convicted him on as a continuing scheme that continued well after these two letters that were we're speaking of here so in hindsight could we have added some more there on wire fraud counts earlier that there'd be zero dispute on probably but i don't even think as you stand here right now there's any real dispute on even these two mailings we're talking about all right thank you thank you and so on mr liddy you have some time to do convert an old toward term you say that the letters speak for themselves so to speak might be creating a circuit split but said that's not the case what is the effect if any council of the fact that the record shows that your client paid him selfe ten thousand dollars and other expenses for family use the and i believe it was at it but then the other way to look at it and it's a jury verdict that don't take out all my princess what that the mere fact that he was spending the money that he'd already stolen i don't think that there's really anything that you can that there's any real so there's that and the fact is on this record i don't think that you can in fact find that the government that that point all right thank you very much counsel united states versus