related to and then i'm going to address the pediment as the judge norco created in this case this is a case about a development that started right after september eleventh two thousand and one two developers had loans and they got into arrears when the real estate market froze up they asked one partners for a bridge loan a two point eight million dollars bridge loan and one partner's client robert shaw who testified in the trial in this case and his partner of his provided the two point eight million dollar bridge loan scottie pippen another one partner's client bought out half of that bridge along with his one from leaders bank that one of the loans at the issue in this case then the developers turned out they couldn't get back on their feet and so one partners took over the properties that the bridge loan related to including the property one hundred ninety thousand marge field in chicago and that's the propert it or sell it simultaneously he had decided to sell it and he had a falling out with scottie pippen at the same time given with a major client of his and pippin forced him into bankruptcy and in the bankruptcy the property was sold to a developer who proceeded to develop it and it's now sitting on my fifty seven one hundred one thousand nine hundred the target store which was always the anchor tenant was built there so this was lines effort to testify about these loans and explain to the jury what his intentions were the center of this case was his mens rea with respect to all three loans and the judge nor goal continuously impeded his efforts to do so part of the reason for the impediment was the judge nor gold didn't understand the case and i would direct the the mr once direct examination we spent about twenty pages talking about the pippen loans and this is after the government had spent t date proving the pippen law bringing on the bank president bringing on the loan officer bringing on scottie pippen to bring me on to board members of the bank to prove the pippen are taking out the loan and the and the judge says  fundamental misunderstanding of the case which reflected the rulings that that he made and then during the during the course of the testimony there were for example couldn't state the precise words he couldn't testify there's no rule that says you can only testify about the precise the act words actually spoken his is the phrase judge in or  use and similarly he would not let mr juan testify about his recollection of his net worth with respect to the the line of credit in the bank mr one testified that he believed that his financial statements accurately conveyed his net worth to the bank which is what he was trying to do judge norgrove would not let him tell the jury what he thought his net worth was rather good to normal required mr one to testify only to identify the specific stocks and other holdings he had twelve years before and that was all that he would let him testify to the jury about in terms of this in order to establish what his net worth counsel was it wasn't the issue though whether the personal financial statements he submitted were accurate and whether he honestly believed they were accurate at the time that the government the government's position was that the statements contained stated that he held morgan stanley and women brother right which he acknowledged that he didn't hold and his position was that in his mind the statements were accurate because they accurately  conveyed his net worth and he had no intent to defraud the bank because he was actually convey his overall picture now that's that's a question for the jury in terms of whether he was i you know what he was doing was fraudulent or not i mean it's a matter if he hadn't acknowledged that he did not hold the women brothers morgan stanley's stock at the time those documents were going knowledge they were inaccurate and that's right now they were prepared remember these are financial isn't that the end of the case because these were not these financial statements have been prepared on other occasions that's that's fine but when they were submitted to the bank here they were concededly inaccurate and i don't see why it matters that somebody says well i totally lied about this seven million dollars in assets but i had other assets so this was a safe loan as i understand the law your belief that the lie didn't matter is no defense the one one of the financial statements was not in his handwriting and there was no evidence how either financial statement actually got from one partner's two leaders back and if somebody sent it and  it's it was not clear what mr one knew was on the statement precisely what was on the statement at the time they went over to the leaders panel as opposed to we keep hearing arguments that this contractor this representation didn't buy me because i didn't read it and they don't really work very well well if you tell a bank you have six point eight million dollars in liquid assets when in fact all of your assets are illiquid and they may or may not have a particular net value and that both the deceit and the materiality are i should think pretty clear yes mike the distinction i'm trying to draw here is that the way these particular financial statements went over they were prepared on different occasions for different banks one for northern trust one for associated bank and we're basically saying mr one didn't when when they went over to leaders bank later because we a financial statement mr one's perception was that they accurately conveyed his net worth because his network didn't change during that period and he was kind of oblivious well the question is when when did he sign i'm sure resign and i don't i don't remember the top of my head but i'll concede that he's right but but again not not at the time they went over to the leaders bank has leaders bank for an extra pernik increase in his line of credit yes and he surely signed a document saying here's my correct financial statement is there any doubt about that yes he they said yes somebody leaders bank said we want to financial statement and one partner's i think would see that the sec it would have been the second would have been the associated bank statement sent over a previously prepared financial statement they did that the same in that did in both instances but they sent over a previously prepared earlier dated it was not dated at the time leader's bank requested it he just sent over a preexisting financial statement or eight i should eat be more precise a preexisting financial statement was sent over by somebody and it was never established who sent over either financial statements from one partners to leaders bank this real one general question that i had after reading your brief was what evidence you actually were not able to present and whether you made a record through an offer to prove or otherwise of such evidence with respect to fork two examples of what we were not able to introduce was airport aircraft purchase agreement and aircraft lease agreement which were in their defense exhibit book that the court and the prosecutor have and that they'd just be april aircraft deal pippin had bought and had an aircraft shortly before the one point four million dollar loan and mr lawn had it with a view offered testimony about that right and i was preparing to try and offer the documents and and i asked for a sidebar to discuss doing that and he refused to have a sidebar that's right at the point where the one where the  making a record offer of proof that this this was my deficiency in this case and i have to say i have never run in to this kind of obstruction by district court judge in this district i've tried thirty jury trials in this in this in this district and i was completely blindsided by what the wait judge normal conducted this trial and the result was not prepared to make the kind of record that i now know you've got to do when you're in this courtroom your inner ear but of time let me t mis representing whether care is actually one of the loan it's not relevant he repeatedly made that objection is that that's a page seventy five of the transcript and the judge sure bought into that and and so the government compound it what the judge was doing in obstructing the that the testimony of mr wong and i would i would reserve the remainder of my time for  entirely irrelevant this case lines net worth testimony was designed to show that somehow even though the financial statements were inaccurate and he did not own the millions of dollars of lehman brothers and morgan stanley stock that his financial statements reflected that he was worth a lot of money well that's not a defense to bank fraud and it poses a danger of confusion and misleading the jury and it was it was it had that it was irrelevant nevertheless mr lamb was able to introduce that test and now there's some record of the transcript shows that he was asked would you have a recollection of what your net worth was at the time in the spring of two thousand and one and then the objections followed in the just report then require some specificity now what what were your assets what were your liabilities and what were they worth and so on and so forth then that you should be the one testified in that manner and was able to introduce his net worth that way even though it was a role he also did this through the introduction of the of that bankruptcy document that showed the i think he introduced it during the cross examination of the government trustees office witness which showed the final disposition of his assets in bankruptcy and he was able to argue in closing that all of his creditors got paid  it was essentially a no harm no foul type argument that was it was really an irrelevant defense to the charge that he had lied in his personal financial statements but nevertheless he was able to introduce it so i'm not sure what the complaint is here the district court required specificity on the net worth that was not an abuse of discretion mr lang was able to introduce the testimony and he has the somewhat complicated area involving pippins loans and purchase of an airplane and so on and so forth but the testimony was what the defense was that the bank had made a mistake in september of two thousand to that lon had in fact told the bank that the purpose of the one point four million dollars pipin loan in september two thousand and two was for real estate investment or the defense was further that when the bank recorded in its documents that loan had said the purpose of the september two thousand and two law was an airplane this contract that was taken the bank's part it had simply copy copied and pasted from a set of documents that it had earlier somehow mistaking what one had said that evidence was available for mr one to make the argument because in fact the bank witnesses had testified that one had started that pippin had taken out a loan in march two thousand and two the bank's records for that loan showed that loan had said that that loan the march to go to was to purchase half or fifty percent share of an airplane and therefore this defense that pivot had entered into it's not clear at all what there was documents would have added to the defense whether or not because whether or not pippin actually purchased an airplane in april two thousand and two was irrelevant to either to the question of whether lynette had lied to the bank about the purpose of the september loan to disk or properly i believe sustain the government's it is it's in the record with one of the founders of that bank a very few years before and the bank very much wanted to went to money so that he would be a customer of the bank so that he could encourage his high net worth clients to also be customers of that bank and so their interest was more in having him as a customer than worrying about what his assets were i just like to make that point secondly back to the the pippen won't end those two contracts mr one negotiated those contracts for pip and the the the other plane and the leasing those were his deals with pippen and the contract would corroborate that it's not enough to somehow have information seep into the record you have to convince the jury and the judge just continual impediments to the testimony render essentially in comprehensible to the jury and deprived mr lawn of the right to convincingly present thank you casey the way he wanted to present case taken under advisement