council while you're getting set up let me just say that i think the way we'll proceed is we'll let both defendants counsel argue first and then the government can responsive bowls and then if you want to save some rebuttal time for the jury to hear that codefendant who is now testifying against his other co defendants is testifying pursuant to some sort of an agreement that he's reached  to know that they have a significant motive as a result of the deal that they have which might impact the truthfulness of what they're saying and i guess the question then becomes how do we do it in a way that asked i'm asking a more fundamental question and that is in order to ensure that the jury have all relevant information to assess the credibility of particular witness isn't it important for the jury to know that the witness has a significant motive for being present in the courtroom today and saying what he or she is the defendants because the senate's on trial because of the manner in which the jury may use that information to the detriment of the defendants on tr that the witnesses were testifying pursuant to an agreement following their own plea of guilty in this particular instance yes because the case law says that that proved  motive of the defense to show in a way that hopefully doesn't think i mean your own client in the process that this witness must be exaggerating or outright lying in order to get a better sentence from the judge after the trial and again your honor in most cases that is true but what's different about what this does from any other case whether it be a drug case or another fraud purchase buyers on the other hand were in fact if there was a conspiracy coconspirators every one of us working together so we weren't in a situation where we wanted to say that mr any time if there is false information put on a piece of paper i think the general public thinks it's fraud well that depends on whether or not it's a good order to induce the victims apart permanently with the money yes i understand and that was the element would have the right well let me ask you a different question and that is what's your best case that allows you to collaterally attack and then under a collateral estoppel theory that the witness all corporations that we're talking about here and you're trying to urge upon us a rule that a low level minion who happens to process the loan paperwork has the authority to speak on behalf of the corporation the bank of new england kind of the theory that if the bank teller who at the time she took the cash in violation of a currency transaction or the bank itself is bound with knowledge that report you don't have a right and if we get and nothing about the lender whether they sold the house as a proxy we don't have any of that information before the court and so i don't think the court could use any of that information even though he wanted to thank you thank you  realtors it's a registered mark and i want to know where in the record i find that she was a member of the national organization  and do they issue licenses or does the state of washington issue salesman's license to real estate sales you can use terms i think that you don't understand or or there's nothing in the record will support s exhibit five dash one and five dash two it's a partially redacted certified copy of state of washington department of licensing certification of license license you're regarding sallie gibson and partially redacted certified copy of state of washington the department of licensing affidavit your honor i don't believe the united states actually exhibit that's it and that's my apologies to the court it just made me nervous about reading the group because i understand the terms which was in a little bit of real estate litigation yes drugged her life she status whether taxes real estate taxes were paid or not and if there was a true reflection of the taxes one would look at the selling price and say this whole case is completely out of whack and if the mortgage lenders were in fact just playing the game i can understand why the united states wouldn't want any of that material but i can understand why it wasn't introduced in athens you're our that's your kid it's that the mortgage people were  your honor the real site the real estate excise tax affidavits were introduced into evidence the uniform residential loan application was introduced in evidence the real estate purchase and sale agreements were introduced the evidence the questions if your honor well there was a confession sally gibson and that's it that's your ninety three ninety four which she admitted when she was interviewed by khwaja boateng of the department of financial institutions and the f b i investigating agent bernie brown in that state written statement she provided she admitted that all of this letters checks that had been altered and other documents and mr givens he took the stand a trial and i questioned him about that that he admitted doing those acts and if those  marco cass the neda indiana cogan from the w m c wire house or mortgage corporation may have known or may have given instructions to that effect but indictment didn't charge that who's loaning the money here it's not the account representatives it's an institution and the indictment charged the institutions were defrauded not the account representatives and moreover the deliber ignorance instruction was taken care of by the way least the instruction that he gave to the jury on materiality which is a honor the materiality instruction is in and the supplemental excerpts of record your honor and judge wally didn't struck that the defendant would not you should not find these statements misstatements material if you c well i better i better check before i don't want to misquote the instruction also of the united states would just direct the court's attention to government exhibit ten which was the zero loan fraud tolerance policy that was executed by mr berger and mr givens for w m c the inference that you're worried that the jury will make that because the cooperating codefendant witness pled guilty to fraud but really didn't think that he or she had done anything for argile and that if the jury is likely just think that that person pled guilty it's not really a crime because the person didn't really mean to deprive anybody therefore my client who