i'm sure if the court is having difficulty understanding me that you'll ask me to repeat myself i'd like to first start out by addressing her this is charity ask is conviction and the insufficiency of the evidence on review on this the standard of review is i don't i have to consider the evidence in the light poles favorable to the prosecution certainly and then it is that any rational trier of fact couldn't have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt certainly so if you know there is no question that your client owned an operating j c right and actually there is some question and so are you friends that your honor there actually is no i'll be fair reading the record it seemed that your client owned and operated j c was educated on the medicare rules and regulations manage the office and paperwork which contained extensive missing paperwork and documents handled the medicare inspections and responded to the audit requests it seems to me that we take those five i'm having a tough time why there is not sufficient evidence and thank you your honor i will address those because i  do think that the evidence does know that i support the conclusions that your honor i just listed well i tried to look at the evidence and that's why i laid it out for it said ok good reason ok let  me let you know understand to put it very bluntly and what was found throughout the throughout the evidence and i'll just put it very bluntly mr mr this business he had an employee in the beginning and this is the employee wasn't working out so he asked mrs janney ascii you know because the store has to be open a certain number of hours would she be in the store during part of the day until he could get that i mean you start out with this problem which is that she was at the recorded owner i assume i am know what you mean by she wasn't the owner i mean oh no she she was the she was the on paper the owner there's there's no question about that well but yes really you may be making a good jury argument to say to the jury now read now look at this evidence and look at it this way instead of look at it this way but whole deal and that's why i started out with the standard over of you certainly is that i have to look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and i and i no i don't think you've done that yet i  you're you're making your best argument to the jury but make it in the light most favorable to the prosecution i think you've missed the point then don't let me address that there was absolutely no evidence that  money she was looking at i mean the problem is you do need a series of her first but the inference would have to be that if she was keeping the files and if she was these signing a lot of the checks so she saw them most of the first of all that most of the business was for these power well with shares in that most of them were from the same doctors and many of those were from doctors that were affiliated with her husband  signatures never once if this case was about mrs mrs journey else signing signatures then the government should have gotten an expert witness to put on and say this was the cordially her signature i'm sorry said it was her signature right who  did if they believed did not i'm not i'm not sure i think that that's going a little too far because and also i will say the jury did i'm i will say no the record shows that the jury did not believe it that jury note is specific cases of fraud if the owner was not aware of any and activity but should have been are they responsible right there that tells you right there that the jury did not believe that was one juror's note how was it resolved by the judge the judge actually well and that's the second argument that we don't want to get to is that the judge failed to evidence and this is a little bit later but at the sentencing hearing it was the judge himself who said that mrs jeremy yassky a pointed out that she had a traditional marriage and she wasn't doing anything more than what her her to do you know so the judge wasn't connecting was actually of mitigation argument that sentence saying that she was not a leader or an organizer that she that someone else was more of a prime mover correct isn't that all that is no comment from the judge i'm sorry your honor but but no i do not believe that i don't whether she i mean and what just get the sense that that was happening but  if what her husband tells her to do was to you know sign somebody else's name to something for example are tell tell the government that i don't have any connection to evidence took place is just that is pure speculation was it wasn't there testimony that she was asked by the agent or or the investigating medicaid medicare person does a family member or someone related to show need to prove that that business was functioning even though there's some indication that it probably wasn't because it was he just disbanded it in two thousand and ten so there was again those are all speculative lea a series of inferences up to something well there is a difference between an inference and speculation the law shows that those are two different things and it is speculative when you simply make something up out of whole cloth you know you know you can't just pretend that she was aware of all this particularly in fact of the evidence that was there we keep talking about inferences instead of looking at the that the at the at the  testimony that was given the coconspirators conspirators testified six ways from sunday how mrs cheney off he was not involved she she didn't come into the office that she didn't talk about one thing she didn't deliver any of the supposed kickbacks she did absolutely none of those things you look at the testimony of elisa melike she was the builder for the company for seven years she said mrs cheney ascii had had almost no involvement she thought that the only thing mrs journey asking did in the seven years she worked there was simply answered the phones all right so and that's again it because there was so much so much testimony showing that she was not involved ok if you're t supporting her convictions but i can emphasize and i'd like to just three points here first she lied about the company she was well versed in medicare rules and regulations yeah sure but what about the company about the ownership of j c medical she repeatedly told medicare and medicare investigators that she and she alone own the company went and also that she was the only one with managing authority that's in the medicare application itself yet as we know it was her husband who was intimately involved and who claimed also an ownership and twelve on the ownership interest i mean there's community property in california so it doesn't i mean if she says it's always true that if i'm the owner of a business m but half the owner so that's not helpful medicare makes clear that identifying the actual owner of a company it's we're not talking about our property a state property interest we're talking about a business interest for purposes of medicare and it's important for self dealing regulations that medicare be aware of who owns a particular company and i have no tooth that there was no confusion back in two thousand and nine well before the just solution of mr chin off his company when she's ever indicate that he had ownership interest in medical supply no to do ask mr nowitzki whether or not any relatives of hers own any other medical entities yes and what did she tell you no those are clear questions clear answers she knew what she was doing and the fact that she may have been as she claims in a traditional marriage which by the way there was no evidence at trial with respect to their their marriage their relationship all this reveals that they have children and that occasionally she leaves to pick up the children we have no evidence presented to the jury with respect to sooth the traditional nature of their marriage but when she agrees to set up the company and her name and pretend that it hers of course she knew that fraud was afoot because why else would she agree to do that second she wrote the kickback checks to where she signed the kickback checks to george and harry a lacking there is no the testimony which is that pages eight hundred sixty eight and eight hundred sixty nine of the excerpts of record mr lang says that of loudest love fill out the checks there was no testimony that she signed the checks and in fact lang assumed that she signed the checks and indeed he testified that with respect to one check the ink on the body of the check and the ink on the signature are different which supports the conclusion that if her husband filled out the check she indeed signed it in any event well but that i mean if she would only think if he just gives her a bunch of checks and says sign him it doesn't prove anything about what she knew to whom this check was going and why well she knew that neither george nor harriet lang were employees of j c medical supply because she worked there she knew that they were providing services because again she does she mans the office so she had to have understood that those checks were illegal kickbacks and that inference is further supported by the fact that she was dropped through large amounts of cash from the checking account our brief notes that it's up to sixty two thousand dollars and these ar not small increments but they're ten thousand two thousand and twenty five hundred this is not just cash to pay the saturday night babysitter the jury could use that evidence in addition to her signature on the checks to infer that she understood she was paying kickbacks but going back to the signature also the jury could compare her signatures on these checks to the known signatures that the government introduced into evidence this is not a situation of extreme or unusual circumstance where the jury should not be allowed to make its own comparison this is the authenticity of her signature on these checks was not the primary issue at trial in fact it was barely even a an issue at trial in closing argument for example and this is at page thirteen ninety nine the fence council spends three lines out of a closing argument that's over three hundred thirty lines and we know that vlad had written her name and used her name at least on ten ninety nine that was the tax form that was provided for harry and it's reasonable to believe he wrote her name or signed her name and other documents that's it this is not a situation therefore the jury could not have could not have sest the signatures and see that they were similar and then finally third point that supports and indeed we believe this to be evident a case of overwhelming evidence of guilt is the files itself which she admitted that she maintained she says fact when he got hold of the files was this and this was when the search warrant was executed in two thousand and thirteen which was the tail of which was the ending point of the conspiracy and the investigators went through these files and found them to be rife with instances of of fraud and whatever this fraud was obvious for the fraud being the absence of well take for example the testimony about the file for edward lee who was the subject of count two and this testimony is at pages twenty one's to sixteen twenty one sixty three to seventy one in this one file there was evidence that the ink on the prescriptions was different that there were different doctors that there was no date on the evaluation that medical term hypertension common term which she was charged with knowing was misspelled and misspelled in several different ways and more over edward lee was prescribed a power wheelchair even though the file indicated that he and the lates well anybody looking at that file would understand hope we don't know that she looked at the file that i mean that's what's wrong with this but she we know that she took some papers and put them in the file but where she is the only one who is filing the stuff and she is the one work in the office only filling in for her he spent most of his time at suite two the evidence was that he occasionally would relieve her if she had to leave early to pick up the children george la testifies to that but otherwise the testimony is that she is the one who's there and indeed when investigators go visit her she is the one who is manning the office she is the one who is knowledgeable about the files who is able to pull the documents who understands that documents are supposed to be she knowingly relinquished the right to challenge that amount later on the focus of her sentencing memorandum was on the correct amount of intended an actual loss she understood that those amounts could be calculated in different ways when she told the judge that it should be a specific come out and she was very specific in that six hundred fifteen thousand dollars four hundred eight hundred dollars to six hundred fifteen thousand four hundred eighteen dollars the judge could hardly be faulted for giving her what she suggested in any that and it is my understanding that the amount that was imposed was that amount which medicare had paid for the power wheelchairs and the power wheelchairs accessories correct no of the district court thank you ok thank you very much and that's just really the one or two tracks there are there aren't many checks on kickbacks at all that they are claiming are kickbacks so so that's not there was the ten ninety nine which again  that the testimony from again the medical bill or was that she really only dealt with the husband she never asked the wife questions because she thought mrs cheney off he only only answered the telephone there was there was information from a vendor the said now i only deal with the husband all of the all of the witnesses who received chairs testified that they had that it was only mr cheney asking who came out and delivered the chairs there is there is testimony after testimony that it asked and and that is what even the court found and you know later on that sentencing so a so i wanted to go over that and the withdrawal of cash and or the withdrawal of monies from how much was being been used for any take backs if that was the case it could be a family that used cash i mean there was nothing there's nothing more there to really a tie that into any kind of