does not have any reporting requirements having used any of them when in fact he there is no evidence that he was qualified by the bank in accord with the regulations means it's more than government has to demonstrate is that an ordinary citizen reading these regulations would not say i've read exempt person ok i'm exempt i don't have to worry about whether it put it eight thousand or ten thousand because there's no even though they are an exempt person they would the bank would still designate them and inform the i r s that they're exempt person then the government's theory of the case is that what it was doing here was not attempting to avoid the  because there is no it would be no obligation to forty isn't really with drop in it's the government's position is that he was sophisticated enough to know that he wanted to fully on the banks designation requirement fine that is a crime that they could charge they did not charge it it's not mentioned in the closing arguments that nowhere does the government get up and say that the jury what this man was attempting to do was was foiled either the c d c orders or the designation of they're government may be alerted like to alert the fact that we drop stuff like where's the money coming from reg but if the government's theory is that is that even though it was an example person there was still a reporting requirement that he was an example for us and then you have to in order to be guilty of this crime you have to know and purposely foiled a reporting requirement don't deal with the notion of being a clearly an acquittal here it is if the government theory is that he was somehow attempting that he was an exam person but he had found a way to avoid the des which a district court judge sitting on a motion said ok you may be right that there is an exemption for withdrawal payments but whether this withdrawal payments is a question of fact for the jury find and the judge that built the proper instructions on that the lawyer who made that motion was replaced by other lawyers the judge ruled that way it was replaced by another judge but given that a ruling had been made that the question of whether the exemption applied was one of facts that the jury obligation he was a different lawyer to ask for the instruction he argued exemption as a had his one real defense to this court the exempt status he argued it to the jury we have a lawyer who didn't understand the process that if you are arguing that you're not guilty under a legal principle the jury is not going to be able to acquit unless they have the legal principle from the judge but given that  entertain that argument here because we don't have a record in terms of strategy theory and theory are good i thought it was well basically he didn't have any reason to hide anything would argue a legal principle to a jury and not have the judge instruct the jury on a legal principle when the judge is going to tell the jury as he did that all relevant law comes from enough from the attorneys  given that a motion to dismiss the promise of an instruction the argument one of the part of the defense counsel i think that we have a situation where it all comes down to this when the government gets up here when they make an argument it will become a question with regard to defendant structuring convictions is whether reporting requirement existed for the bank at the time that the structuring occurred and it's clear that there was no such reporting requirement  really involved in the withdrawal decisions so his office manager gerry gray's testified that she was the one who made the decision to withdraw nine thousand dollars on thursday that he had no if there was no regulations that there was evidence presented at trial that there was drawls were used for payroll and the government doesn't dispute that those withdrawals were used for harold but i don't believe there is any evidence that that information was ever presented to the again i think that you would say that the fact that a reporting requirement existed it depended challenge to restructuring conditions is that there was no reporting requirement to avoid and accordingly the fact that reporting requirement existed requirements for a hero has to wear until the bank specifically designated him as an example payroll hosmer if you were to withdraw more than ten thousand dollars in a single business day until the designat him as example if that was the government's theory they had a heart he when they had a present that they had in charge and they never mentioned that theory that he was attempting to avoid the oil for the requirements designation so the question of whether this man was attempting so for deal the reporting of his exemption is a question of fact that has to be decided by the jury and the proper instructions given the nature of this argument given if you want to get some water and date but at the same time the crime here is in a very real sense very ephemeral the crime is supposed to be is alleged to be this investigation of certain words in a conversation in either december or is the error in your view that the judge didn't let the defense attorney cross examined sufficiently aware that the defense attorney was unable is and he and they have it with the documents in hand that never happened so we never have we have or have an impeachment on those documents which the judge seemed to permit so we have a no the leave pages later it's saying that these or relevant matters for impeachment but you can't put in those under seal six or eight when it's made a country will five hundred pages before with the defense was phony documents it is our government records that show this to me and this is a disgrace to the united states and the united states marine corps the reason why not have the government get up in closing this they you know what we didn't know when it started but we now committed perjury the last time the fact that he's been ripping off that the that the government can put him on the stand again if it's got some other way to prove up this charge or some other charge fine but the if the government stand either he either says again oh i told him i was a combat veteran and and faces the fact that he's a liar of this guy or he says look i lied under oath the last faction number of the sending machine i can't explain it and it's my knowledge agent long did not receive this prior to who would have received it who would have all right thank you you thank you because it doesn't believe the jury in this case should hear any information which might lead them to conclude that it's that swisher was a complete liar and lead to an acquittal what kind of a fair trial comes if the government with this case it this was a bomb that they did not intend to explode on direct let it come on cross so then we came to scape responsibility for the introduction of perjured testimony  he would have only been sixteen by the time there was a ceasefire that's when he comes up with the rambo story about being parachuted or operating behind enemy lines it's certainly suggests that they once they heard that did not wan near this on direct but were perfectly willing to have it come out on cross what comes out on classes perjury what comes out on cross of false documents let me just stop there and if they have any suspicion that that might be  he was a korean war veteran and then and then shaping its testimony i mean this detects a just said we didn't have them whether it was a korean war veteran after opening in that way why not it certainly suggests that they that that he was going to perjure himself and if you was going to perjure himself they thought they were safe if he did it on cross rather than on the rare i think the record more than suffices to reverse at this time i think stand tending to commit perjury with documents prepared to prepare him to commit perjury and he did commit perjury and in young this court said there seems to be a strong suspicion here of knowing use of perjur with my client would pay the price of by being confined in florence until it comes out and i think the truth is going to bear out that this was at least a reckless use of perjury on the part of the government