and so my client came along with three people that were discussed this his partners made a loan and they made an offer to buy tables plaza and then we hand out was it letter and when the actual loan document was entered into law to the letter talks about a three million dollar loan but that's not the loan that was made when the long green that was signed it became a two point three million dollar loan that was fully secure or without any conditions i will say that this is the first case i have ever tried where the victim says i'm the victim we have never been defrauded they say fraud that he committed in this bank was clear but he admitted that my quite knew nothing about it none of the other partners knew he was doing that he just good at he wanted the three hundred thousand dollars because he's probably  no more or less stupid than my client was i'm talking about criminality this bank was going to give the three hundred thousand dollars because they qualified for it without a single condition on the three hundred thousand dollars this  was the former governor's chief of staff governable t rich he's been indicted four times by i tried to case in san francisco this case was removed i tried a number of counts in january we prevailed i tried ten counts in april we prevailed on an eight of the ten there was a motive to this train going down the track and i am convinced that had to do with getting sharon to cooperate convinced of that i don't have anything in the record other than what i know happened in communications which remain private between myself and the end of the first trial well when the jury came back so quickly and all these months of tapes and a video on it in a motel room with woodville taken some money and an awful lot with the government then said by leonard was that we were able to finally the deal that was made and the fact that the government said he committed perjury before the first jury at least in their opinion and the fact now as to his motive for coming back and testify special scoundrel at the cost of the quiet seems you are prevented from getting into the communications between lawyers unless florus knew the communication that's exactly right but he didn't know the communications so what i think you were stopped from demonstrating that the way i read the trial was about because a judge would let me ask  exact motive for why he was testifying and going into not just the deal but the fact that he was accused of perjury by the government that put him on hand and the judge says you're not going to do it and that was the end of it but i will tell you i was given a great that actually listen to florrie's and i understand who he is and what he wants diversion just enough to be able to show that these communications these invoices and things that he submitted to the ba you asked him did you commit perjury or such a circumstance around you know i asked him about committing perjury i don't know how many times but i was unable to go into that's my memory i wasn't able to go into the fact had done some contract work for the u s attorney's office and guam and within thirty seconds this guy's back on track all i'm saying is generally speaking i believe the lawyers are kind of then into the wind when they come in front of of of your or other appeals courts and argue that you know why the jury did me wrong the evidence was insufficient but in this case where we're talking about materiality of this letter and we had what the bank spent and did cross examine the bank officer and and what we got into was the fact that the day before when i when i questioned the president of the bank and he said well the conditions in terms of change there were no restrictions on the use of the three hundred thousand dollars he kind of said well i guess there were not one words these guys were idiots to like the letter as i said but but the issue of whether that was a quine to get the three hundred thousand dollars they were entitled to under any conditions is really what the issue is and everything kind of flows from that other than what what the justice asked me regarding being proposed from actually going into the heart of the fact that the florrie's in the government's perception have lied to know whether there was going to proceed to the second trial after the first one which was decided so so quickly and what the government obviously pushy was the best case they have of the shepherd to the shop accounts i'll be happy to answer any questions if you have a section as a second matter let me represent to the court that the government never accused mr flores of perjury this dispute arises excuse me because of a letter that of examples there was extensive cross examination of mr flores regarding hand tracks that he had been showing him to be a deadbeat in desperate need of money and that being a motivation for all of his testimony this before is took the attitude that he had done if he truthfully admitted the checks but his attitude was one of i was forced to do it by fate business circumstances the fact that i was out of money that to the government indicated responsibility for the activities that were much more wide ranging that were described in the my other argument on that point is that the the cross examination was as perro as as could possibly be all possible means of exploring mr flores is motivations for testifying  of the alleged statements by the government attorneys about his truthfulness was not prohibited mr green was prevented from exploring that with mr flores before the jury but he was not prevented from asking to do e they were in desperate circumstances they needed to unload this piece of property which was only a fifth a prominent family that included a number of sit catholic sisters and there was the prospect of entering the  get the collateral back minus the money and it doesn't make sense knew wasn't going to be used for representation was going to be at least that's what they were representing to the loan agreement was signed there was never an appraisal done as required by federal banking laws they didn't for one told us on the margin as family in violation of federal banking laws if they thought they were defrauded they didn't file a suspicious activity report in violation of federal banking laws when we came to the bar of justice to try this case a threat look losing their bank they're really going to step up to the plate and take responsibility and i mean i don't know how how stupid that is as i said before i've used that word before it didn't matter what they said they could be expected at the data track and when they said they wanted i did what i think willie happened was i think that when we look at the commitment year never believe they were deported because they were not i hate to say this because you know i've been involved in the system for so many years and i'd like to think that when people raise their right hand the truth is coming out in a courtroom but they changed dramatically between what this law was when they were threatened by losing this bank and federal officers coming in and taking over the bank because of this loan and the fact that they they keep saying we want to broaden it we just needed to get out from under this thing and now arguments like that if you can prove it in good faith but what i'm saying is at least two or three of these letters trying to put words in the mouth of the government what the government's position is it's completely inadmissible as far as i can because if you do any a warrant on proving the guy's motivation you're just not going to be able to spring these letters i did what we look at things seriously even though you just go i don't know i push it that your honor but as i said that's not there was when i looked at this with this jury deliberated i wish i was satisfied that it wasn't that stand no i've you know which i don't think it's a balancing test for lawyers i think that i didn't get personally involved in the case even though i happen to like my client but when i look at what this bank d m and i look historically how they their banking procedures were and i saw will do with the loan was and i saw how they would do anything to loan this money three hundred thousand dollars was a fake and that was with their money it and that's why you are if you look at the other seven hundred thousand definitive letters three million the loan agreement is to point three they've given them the other seven other thousand without more was collateral a change that but they had to give the two point three and they didn't care what the three hundred thousand which