know that the money that he gave to them for the purposes of building their house came from his drug business and he stated that he did lie to them he told them that it was from his landscaping business well that particular statement  s very important to go to the proof in the elvira's case to show whether or not they had the knowledge and the intent in order to form this conspiracy and so if you can't show where they had the knowledge that the money was from all their did not know that the money they received from defendant salazar gelling was illegal derived his statements therefore do not include the element of conspiracy or agreement to commit money laundering so they took the money laundering conspiracy to launder money out of the  well if you can't have it for jorge and you can't show there was an agreement then how can you say that there was an agreement and knowledge for the other two defendants the alverez you can't have it so you can have it both ways but what i would like to show is the fact so it wasn't where he was able to get away from doing something he was just stating that they didn't know anything about it so they should not be charged with this because there was no agreement so that you know and it was up to the jury to be able to make the decision whether or not he was he was telling the truth or whether it was just a motive because it was this is termed brother in law and it wasn't up to the court to make that determination was up to the jury to make that credibility determination and there is quite the argument also insufficiency of the evidence as far as the conspiracy that's another argument on for both the all there as and there was not any evidence presented by the government to show that there was an agreement between jorge and the two of them to launder this money there wasn't any showing and that there was any knowledge that they knew that this money was from an illegal selling of drugs they didn't know that know there was no illegal agreement in order to take this money and change it into something else and hide it for the deposits were open the withdrawals were open so there was no evidence presented by the question of did you put money in this bank account did you put it in that bank account and anyone can be confuse once he was shown he said oh yes the idea and he acknowledged he didn't disagree it's just that for the moment he couldn't remember which account and that's understandable first of all he was communicating here and a second english as a second language he had an interpreter but questions were being presented to him in a legal format in legal terms and it was very difficult for him to understand sometimes what was being asked and how he should answer the question so i don't think there was any intent on his part to try and hide himself i think it was honestly he could remember and he was so overwhelmed just like i can remember right now and i have it right in front of me what the name of that bank account was so it was only the one instance everywhere else he admitted he admitted yes we took the money now there was an argument to that it was it was in money orders or cash well that was very easily explained where he did not know how to write in english so he didn't have a checking account he couldn't write checks so the only way that he negotiated money transactions was either in cash or money orders his employment checks he just positive he didn't have to write anything no evidence here that he was trying to hide anything it's just evidence of he was trying to build a home for a family and the means provided by the brother in law were there and that's how he accepted  landscaping business lot of these transactions are passed transactions and some of them are done off the books i think that's the term which that conversation took place i don't believe there's any actual statement from on air which he knew this was  verdict that the defendant in that case at trial was caught in an inconsistency in cross examination this was the second inconsistency the first inconsistency was of course the statement he gave to the agents gray that he had to put thirty thousand dollars in the house in two payments of eighteen thousand dollars that he had saved in the pocket of a raincoat in a closet and in the next year he had saved an additional twelve thousand dollars and put that into the house making a total of thirty thousand dollars in the house of course the twelve thousand dollars he had saved in the year was on the total income joint income of twenty four thousand dollars that he and his wife have totally ridiculous i submitted an argument his voice in the background you know what's his what's evidence that he or the money was coming circumstantial evidence around based upon what he said about how he handled the money the where he there was there were there were transactions that were done during the time frame that were broken up between the banks that were transactions that occurred in both banks on the same day and it was some distance between the banks and from w  on the wiretap was inconsistent with and and i believe you pointed out your honor that there was there was inconsistency or there was testimony about the that she  their story for their version of whose house it was from from day one on these conversations almost talked about it it has been it is his house what are you going to sell your house they the census people came and brought the form for you because you're the owner of the thousand dollars back to mr salazar's attorney that it was thirty thousand dollars he couldn't house and that was that was then admitted on cross examination well admit it actually inconsistency was on direct examination with his own attorney where he said well i put fifty thousand dollars in the house that i got stuff that's about what i got that was his direct examination i cross examination he admitted there was another account and gave this story that i forgot about that account i closed it years ago i closed it years ago only when i worked at the airport and i don't even remember the name hundred ninety nine two years previous to that and the money that went in there was from mr jorge sales are twenty six thousand dollars and that money was traced actually fifteen thousand dollars of that was traced also into the construction of the house so it's well over fifty thousand dollars well over thirty thousand dollars out of his own pocket he admitted that he claimed on his his support staff that it was only his money that when they got caught in lie after lie after li got up and stated that they interviewed him in his home and he said theirs and i even had agent drain who could speak spanish well when i'm you know you know was on the stand and asked us same question he said well his spanish is about as good as my english and if you read the transcript his english is not very good at all and so therefore and anyone that speaks another language can know that words can be you know a word has a different meaning if you don't say it correctly so just because they said that the information was given and that it was theirs you know wasn't that i think you have to take that with a grain of salt as what language are they speaking another thing about it there was no evidence as to the knowledge of whether or not particularly emilio all there if he knew where this money was coming from he thought it was from a legitimate landscaping business there was nothing in his testimony there was no evidence presented by the government to show that anything other than the fact that he thought it would take him from legitimate f about i don't believe that mister ever lied about the ownership of the house because he always maintained that it was his house he was building it however his brother mark jorge is the one that loaned him the money and therefore by the money he had an interest in the home and i believe that was beyond lives interpretation of it also well it's our house however it's with your money that we're building this house so really in essence you can own the house through because that's in reality the banks own the house we have the true owners and we have a mortgage they have a really owners we're not however we consider ourselves owners so i don't think it was any really intend to hide our intent to just over the true ownership of the housewives and  i'll leave that there was not enough evidence to convict him on the conspiracy you know and the time over to on the issue of whether or not the old where primarily mr over who i speak for had knowledge of the source of this money so i court two cases in my brief united states versus mystery and united states first i'm a google those are both cases examining these two people who i granted not very sophisticated people tonight educate this country i was very paranoid but they simply i don't did not report the evidence to show that this was drug market and those