to hold some security for some loans that i'm making and you would hold it as a as a trustee and in the event of a default then you would likely date the security and you would repay the loans was the sign agreed to do that the security that was given to the original statute itself under some paragraph to where you were it clearly indicates that that by signing the other words clearly qualifies that and that is by the act of signing the person guaranteeing the signature on the instruction made no warranty that the sign it was the registered owner what they've done in this case if they pulled it out they've rephrased it they've made it more general and by that i mean when i say they make they've made it more general before when it was under under the paragraph only referred to by the act of signing you're not warranting that the person was the owner but when you pulled out and put at the bottom now if i was a juror and i was reading this i came to the bottom and i just read the person guaranteeing the signature on the instruction made don't want  two of them and that is the misleading mr newman testified that they at the time added before the time they loaned money they had never talked to mr sign in fact it wasn't until a year over a year after they had to loan the money well your honor that's not the way they came into the trial and what i would suggest is that in fact they turn judge car into an opinion expert on sign as is evident in the in the closing argument they  his life over this guy and this guy just said on the bench allowed you know not just on the edge but miles and miles and miles of a planetoid prejudicial fears they all kinds of stuff that should never come in and just let it all come in and here he is you know sixty nine years old pursuing this litigation he was pursuing this i submit as a defense to this case because he knew he knew what the evidence was he knew he had  america right which case the ohio no i believe that the case was still ongoing during the course of our our trial the exact result of that now i don't know because i've not kept up with it but at the time it was ongoing because was the whole issue of this litigation raised and what context this was raised during the course of the defense it was not raised by the government and what happened was during the course of the defense and was raised in the opening of the defen or was that i i don't believe so your honor i believe that it came up closer towards the beginning of the defense because the government did not lie and wait in fact before the defense started calling their witnesses i informed the court and defense counsel that if they intended to go into this area i was going to question him about what happened in ohio so i believe that when i mentioned that i was because i had i had gotten wind because of the witnesses that they were calling that this is what they were going to do but i'm so i did not look at the opening arguments and i don't know that he referenced it i can't can't be sure on that but it was not an issue that we raised certainly during our direct as far as in fact we considered before trial the possibility of trying to exclude testimony about this but we were concerned that then we would be some from the bank of new york to testify as to what happened happened at court so i could have very well testified that isn't what happened well then if i could have that's exactly why you don't introduce somebody else's opinion as to what happened but then the choice left to wonder what's going on in  ohio because on the one hand sign a saying that's not what happened on the other hand the bank of new york people are saying it it's what's happening and so you end up with a confusion of the jury the jury does is left to wonder what's going on in ohio and that's that was why the judge only way we can really count it is to bring in all this and now i think i did at first i just couldn't figure out why anybody would allow all of us spoke now occurs to me what i what i gather you're saying i he's a liar so you have to conclude he was a liar we never said that we never said that what we said was what we said was that he test that he i recall it there are two things one is during the course of the closing i said mr saif claims that he didn't have he what he really didn't have a chance to be heard in ohio when he testified long enough for a judge quite to conclude he was a liar i did say that but i never said that you have to accept what judge carr said as being true the and in fact the tagline of the argument with respect to judge cars with respect to the opinion in ohio was no one could believe that what is going on in ohio is going to result in the recovery of money and that was the tagline of the argument to establish to the jury that this talk that sign was given that he was going to get this money back that he was working and all the rest of it to get the money back and he was ultimately going to get it if you're saying that nobody could conclude would was proved elsewhere for example he gets signed it's a judgment and utah for eighteen million dollars and don metals who has no privity of contract with the victims just rolls over and says you can have eighteen million dollars who in the world does that then he takes he takes the three million dollar judgment and apparently uses that to get stock brokerage companies i mean there's plenty of evidence again simply isn't sol size one side is pursuing this litigation and in utah and pursuing it in ohio i submit he had in mind what his defense was going to be he knew he would he knew he had misled these people to keep he was he was indicted  february of two thousand to he was interviewed by the f b i in december of two thousand and one he knows that he's in a lot of trouble so he says i submit he's thinking to himself i'm going to pursue this i'm going to pursue litigation i'm going to try and get judgments i'm share how would you try to prove it under those circumstances we could have taken one of two courses we could have sought to exclude this evidence as irrelevant if that had been unsuccessful done previously it wouldn't be successful that's a defense in ohio introducing introducing statements that the court issued in that case but i going if that no one could believe that what the judge said in ohio that no one c way if the bank of new york would get out of its way if assistant u s attorneys would get to quit so many things in utah he'd be able to get this money he testified about how he got money and he talked about how there were a million still out there they thought he could get so he left he left that not raising their objection to it it's conceivable but frankly your honor even if we got and instruction from the court to say that you know this has been introduced not for the truth of the matter but just to let you know what the status is of the save the day so i don't know that instruction would make any difference and frankly i submit the issue is not whether there could have been an instruction the issue is what is the standard of review and it's plain there and i believe that looking at this evidence all of the mean in one in a sense if someone had if we tried to call judge karr i don't know that we would have been permitted to try to i don't know what the district court would have ruled on that and i don't know what position judge car would have taken with respect to that but our position is that this evidence was not in permissible to comment however it came in and if judge carr testified i am sure that defense would had one heck of a time trying to cross examine him based on the findings that he made  so that the position that our position is the evidence coming in was not in permissible if if there had been a limiting instruction i submit that his current position well i the government's position would have been at that time well for the for the jury to hear it was permissible for the jury to hear it and whether there'd been a learning instruction wouldn't made any difference because you argue it would still be the same the issue is whether or not there was a plane there and i submit that when you look at all of the evidence in this case i mean signs involvement with si telling people to sign was not just some passive trustee for example mark rathbun testified that when he was representing a client who was interested in the program he went to science office and sign said that yes you can earn a fairness of the trial my point is there is overwhelming evidence in this case and that's what the district court found and this record that if your court very vivid recollection described what happened when caught when signed was on the stand and he was being questioned about how nice things to say would not affectively have countered his ultimate defense that i'm acting in good faith and only bring in everything with it all and with the picture be balanced best he can and they're just accusing him of all these terrible things but if they would just one go forward he would you know he was just acting in good faith how with the government and they were bottle answer why would they have been left in clearly overstepped their bounds or as a way to cross examine within the rules and the government didn't do that they didn't stop an inch over the border or even a mile over the border i mean it just came in and reams and reams and reams and that's that's the problem here i mean that it is just a matter of degree and that is you you know you have or you have within the rules of latitude to to certainly you know test the testimony this man in presented but they hear they they didn't do that they just want to such access that was playing people whether you know one or two exceptions don't have any contact with sign until this litigation this post antakya litigation to collect again most of the most of the evidence about signed revolve around this satellite or collateral issue  of the judge card thing you know two thousand record two hundred references and so on but that was the bulk of it and so our argument is because most not all there was some limited other testimony regarding time because time we didn't become involved until later in the