property in violation of eighteen us c section six forty one c specifically taking money from the social security administration by making a false claim for children survivor benefits that conviction cannot stand because the government did not bear its burden of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt first the government failed to prove that the money or property described in the indictment social security children's insurance benefits belongs to the u s government and it is a thing of value of the u s government within the meaning of the statute the district court held as a matter of law that those benefits were a thing of value of the u s government this is an issue of first impression for the court neither counsel below nor counsel on appeal have found any controlling law on whether children's insurance benefits of the social security straight to the heart of the matter your honor the i think it is the nature of the social security administration that makes a difference in whether these benefits and funds are in fact government property or not because the funds of the social security administration are held exclusively in trust the money goes into the us government via payroll checks and that money is then deposited into the trust that was created in  in only in the sense of the form of the payment of those benefits i but if i believe i hear what you're saying your honor it's a pay as you go system in one sense but the deeper picture is that the money itself is like the funds of any trust held solely for the benefit of the of the people for whom the trust was created and the people for whom that trust was created are the people of the united states i know that there was a recent decision that opposing counsel cited to the court by a letter comparing the social security benefits to a draw on a bank and i think it is again the nature of the social security administration compared to the nature of a banking has your name on it it's not going to have funds in there that didn't come from you but yet the supreme court said that the bank have rights to that and it seems like you're a step or two for the removed from that situation here i agree your honor and i think that that well if if you lost in the bank can you win here the difference lies in the nature of the agreement that a deposit or has with a bank which is i signed an agreement i'm going to let you hold my money i know that you're going to take my money and do other things with it you're going to invest that money you're going to go elsewhere with that i'll let you use it and i agreed to let you do that when i put my money in the bank that's not the case with benefits of the social security administration when my money comes out every month to go into the social security administration i'm not telling the united states government put that in a general fund do whatever you want with that i don't care whether it's there when i'm able to retire when my children need it or not the problem though going back to church teaches question it's not know how or for dollar and it's not there is no match someone just put social security into the trust in your market it doesn't come out there's no correlation between what goes so that that's why i'm having a little trouble i had actually a lot of trouble with the suggestion that it is government property and i understand your honor and now i think i am more clearly understand your question indeed it is not that that money with my name is earmarked for me from the time i put it into paid into the social security administration until perhaps down the road i draw i may never draw on it i may or may not retire i may not for whatever but it is the system itself is created to pressure the book to do that it's not just that you may never draw on it you have no control over who will draw on what you pa don't correct correct because it is a system that was established to provide for the overall benefit of the american people it was set up to provide old age benefits disability benefits survivor benefits and for that money then to be there requires that it be secured and protected in some way in the way that it was set up and protected is via the trust that was created so that the money sits in the trust so the securities are invested interest from those securities goes back into the fund if if the issue were as simple as does the money does a check come from the us government i don't think i would be here today  because clearly what happened here was that there were benefits that were paid from the social security administration to marcel keizer on behalf of these two minor children but it is a a broader deeper issue as to whether those funds that were set aside and remain set aside if the united states government wants to use any of those funds they have to get permission from congress in order to borrow from the social security administration funds if it were funds that were simply straight up government money the united states government itself wouldn't have to ask permission to use it that the government would simply use it so you're just you're saying this warner then you simply disagree with the circuits reasoning that is correct your only case i do they were satisfied that the trust fund was not fully independent of the general revenues of the united states treasury right now do you take issue with that i think there was a an incorrect understanding of where the funds came from for the benefits which is i think the eighth circuit thought that the social security administration funds are held in the general fund of the united states exclusively and not in this separate trust and i believe the court there also looked at the nature of somewhat of the social security administration which itself describes itself as being two things as being an accounting mechanism obviously there's a way to get this money from the payroll taxes to individuals who then later qualify for benefits reason i was looking askance is that it seemed to me that in point of fact the eighth circuit did clearly recognize the distinction between crossbones in the general in the general revenue of the united states it simply it differently than you did right and i think that comes down to an issue as to whether we're talking about a trust and trust law is very is vastly developed in other areas and if trust law applies here if there is a trust that was created for the benefit of americans when they reach old age or have disabilities then that trust should operate and be guided by the same rules that other trusts are and you my trustee who you have a trustee who manages it the trustee has access to the accounts can make payments from accounts but it's not the trustees money and i think that that is where i take issue with the with the eighth circuit and when i bring this issue before the this court today is whose money is it is does it remain the property of the people for whom it is held in trust or does it in fact belong to the federal government for its use in any way that it sees fit if we agree with you and cries that conviction is dismissed as reverse and dismiss what about the next person who comes along are you saying that person can't be convicted of any crime whatsoever because there is no owner of the present owner of the property no i'm not saying that because in this case we have a present owner in the sense of the children who received the benefits and i think there are other scenarios in which for example the direct theft of someone's social security check if they weren't doing at all about by direct deposit these days but as a direct theft of a check that check may well be a thing that is that you are u s government but but once the benefits have been paid and received then there is that is a separate issue i'm just trying to figure out where you're going on this and whether you're saying to a new law is needed in order to prosecute this or there were other ways the government could have done it but it just didn't do it this case i think in mr key is this case there might in fact need to be a change in the law or a real revisiting of it i also think that simply the record here didn't establish some of the information the facts about the social security administration that would be needed in order in a case like this what more would the government need to show in your view i think here have the government i'm not sure that there is something in these in this particular scenario that could be shown and my my my question actually proceeded on that assumption because if you're into the j d what i was asking you is in another case what more would the government need to show s factual scenario is worded here's the social security administration operates the way i operate here is it going to be anything else get the government could show you know another case that would be different on these facts and in this particular scenario what i'm asking the court to rule is if it is indeed as a matter of law that in this particular scenario these were not funds of the u s government within the meaning of the statute good morning your honour's may it please the court as your honors i have pointed out this morning the issue i think at the heart of this case is who would be the owner and a case like this and the district court properly ruled that the social security benefits at issue here are a thing of value of the federal government in this case the entire receipt of the benefits by mr kaiser was fraud as the government proved it trial he  annoyed the children for whom on whose behalf he received the benefits were entitled to survivor's benefits and therefore the social security administration should have retained this money that it paid to mr kaiser he was not entitled to any of it it was paid out of the child survivor's benefits front which is a program administered by the social security administration and this money came from the united states treasury issues the money it the program is administered by an agency of the united states that determines our debility and oversees the fund and as this court has recognized the funds come from the government and are unquestionably property of the government in that form and so on the district court is correct that as a matter of law the funds are government property and much as the eight circuit has recognized the distinction between the general revenue and the trust fund is artificial in this sense when the money is paid into the trust fund it is administered and the programs are overseen by the united states government and the thing of value to me i believe your honor in this instance it's the money that's being paid write i do not believe they have an ownership interest or honor they when this money is given paid taken out of payroll taxes of workers it goes into the program for the program to down the road determine who is eligible and as runners have stated many times for whatever reason someone may not ever take that money back out that they've paid and they may not retire you know i'm sorry so are you saying that nobody has ownership interest at the time these funds were converted the government your honor had an ownership interest in the ownership interest or a property interest is there a distinction between ownership interest and property and there them but i don't believe that there is in this case in this case the money had been turned over to the government by the workers for the government to determine how it would be paid out and was sorry and mr kaiser essentially engaged in the scheme to defraud the government of that money which is what was shown here at trial the reason that i'm having a little difficulty with your formulation is there you seem to proceed on the assumption that the united states solely has an ownership interest or property interest irrespective of the density of the proper at what you have is a situation in which the united states has a property interest for the purposes of preserving the corpus for the persons who are entitled to receive it but not independently of that and it sounded to me as though you didn't agree and i'm trying to understand that no i'm sorry i don't think i disagree with your honor that correct as to someone who is rightfully paid and rightfully entitled to a benefit of that program the government does not have ownership interest over that person which was obviously not the case here as to mr kaiser or the circumstances are rows where that individual was entitled to some kind of payout for instance a retirement social security benefits or survivor's benefits they would have a new ownership interest in that for those particular payments i'm against the united states government but i do not believe that the individuals paying funds and as a matter of law have an ownership interest generally in the fund because that is money that the government is now  overseeing and dispersing to individuals who are entitled to these payments and in this instance these funds were administered directly to m from the social security administration and with any administration he filled out eligibility forms with them he thought that representative payee forms accounting back to the social security administration for how he used this money and then get a clear on this record that as a matter of law these funds are property of the united states i can address as well the issue with the cross examination of mr preponderant here we have a district court i did not abuse spoken to his sister kisa and the defendant indicated excuse me mr bond he indicated to defense counsel that he was not aware of that and that he knew agents came to his home but his sister does not with him and so in this instance when defense counsel then attempted to ask the question regarding deportation they did not lay a proper record that mr bond he had any knowledge that agents had even spoken to his sister much less that that event  led to do deportation and if the district court recognized the trial this would have been a confusing issue to the jury as to trying to establish mr bond bias in this case  there was no record he was even aware his sister had been spoken to and even if you were that it created bias is speculation on this record to the part of the defense and therefore it was within the discretion of the district court to limit that cross examination and as the government pointed out in its brief even if this court just agrees the error is clearly harmless on this record as the evidence other evidence at trial overwhelmingly proved that mr gage in this fraud i'd like to address two points on bravado the first is who has a property interest and who has an ownership interest in these social security administration and benefits i think that there is a difference and i think that the united states government clearly has a property interest as i believe you said judge duncan to preserve the corpus of the money that is in this trust to provide benefits down the road there is however separate interest from the the people who paid into the system and while it may not be an individual one person who has that interest there is a group of people the people who pay into the system the united states people of of the united states who have an interest in that money their interest it may be dual property interests it's a it's a fine line as to ownership of the funds but i think more than one party here has an interest in those funds and that is is why this property here may not be a thing of value of the u s government alone it is also a thing of value to to the people who paid into the system and i certainly take your point mr kaiser neither of those groups he stands in the shoes for i think for purposes of the argument here as the recipient on behalf of the children he stands in the shoes of the children who then receive the benefits and opposing counsel said many times that it was you know there was no rifle received here there is no rifle beneficiary and i believe that's the issue that's before the court today is whether whether mr keyes the did defraud the social security administration as the jury found presented a false claim for benefits saying that the children were the children of his deceased brother and not his own children or whether the evidence did not prove as was required if there any further questions from the court as to the social security issue or the other issues raised i be happy to answer them otherwise i will rest on the brief for the remainder of the argument thank you very much and we are going to court note we know that you are court appointed so we would like to thank you very much for your service to your client into the court thank you your honor we will come down and greet counseling proceed directly to the next ca