third that the defendant knowingly and by deception of pain control attempt to do to obtain control or cough and phobia taint over the property of an insurer and the third the second and third seem to be highly related ye repair fraud when he or one for whose kind of if legally accountable knowingly enters into a car fare for home repair for their home repair and he knowingly promised this performance which he does not intend to perform or north will would not be performing at the time of trial how much work and according to the state's attorney in their closing arguments the state's the treasury in her words indicated it there but did you understand the position of state to be that home repair in order to avoid a home repair fraud charge you need to complete one hundred percent apparently it is your honor and there is a case clear based on his testimony that a substantial amount of work had been done and i think that testimony securing the state's assertion or statement in clos client barry parks had been identified in court and that was another issue had been identified in court and he felt that the advice was sufficient to find him guilty of these two counts he not testify and even though it was clear that the claim that was filed with allstate was a legitimate claim and you also found my client guilty of the home repair fraud even though there was substantial arguments are not evidence right there not evidence but do you think that they would reflect the evidence that was presented at court and you would think that the statement by the assistant state's attorney had a trial would only make that statement if it was consistent with the evidence with action no work was completed until two months later then they sent two men out for one day to work on the roof they were doing and satisfactory job they took them back then no work w the six thousand four hundred dollars that is the extent of the money that they put in to repairing her home and they didn't even pay them at the time this they paid after they had quit for not getting paid then i'm assuming a spew broke out  six thousand four hundred dollars that is what the finance company put into this home the check that they received from allstate was forty five thousand dollars it's clear that they never had any intention of fixing her home or t doing them after they received the money and before it they sent to john donnelly the contractor they offered her two thousand dollars to settle to go away two thousand dollars that it isn't that's clear that they never had this intent they never had the intent to fix the home but they did fix the home to some extent they just didn't complete they did minimal work they did minimal work after john donnelly big quit electrical work was unattached the thirteen thousand dollars that she paid to the other contractor covered the work that she expected to have been covered and i'm asking this as an explicit question to her did she expect the work that she paid for to have been covered by the amount of money she received from austin i don't think that there is a doubt to that in the well didn't she but he did ask that question did she answer that question as she she was not asked the question but her or her home with it i just had their work burton approved no i think that they promised to fix her home they promised to repair it to its original state and it's clear that that never happened that allstate believed the pro repairs would cost forty five thousand dollars they spent six thousand four hundred she spent thirteen thousand dollars that's not enough to get a home that was completely destroyed by fire back to its original condition it just isn't and i think the way that defendant and his company drag this on for a period of nine months shows that they just never had any intention of actually preparing her home is contract for home repair wouldn't work well it can be an oral contract and they promise performance which they do not intend to perform or they know will not be performed and the statement that the burn on both of these charges is charged criminally for the conduct of the company itself not not that i'm aware of not that i want to know what if the defendant this defendant the employee had every intention of complying with the contract that was signed with  wasn't he wasn't liable i'm not saying that that is his only option but he didn't do any of that i think his intent did show that he that he was liable he did not get an obligation because he didn't he incurred in  with the complaining about mr perks they were complaining about the company they were complaining about the company who owns a company sr christianson and his wife yes were they charged in this case they were charged in a different case they were both convicted but they action represented to all state that they would be incurred loss for fixing miscasts home and they didn't do that i think it's clear from the record that they never tell you told us the claim is false from the perspective of actual fire and not from the perspective is that he was that he was an employee and that he was her public adjuster it was his responsibility to ensure that her home was repaired and it has a public adjuster it's his responsibility to make sure that every claim that she ha make her whole yet in terms of actually doing the work that needs to get done to physically make her whole i don't see how the public adjuster has any role and he in this case he does because he recommended it because he was contract with action player to do the repairs he there is no evidence in the record that defendant barry parks represented himself to be a public adjustor commis cos they asked that fire damage was incurred but really only thirty thousand dollars of fire damage was incurred if he inflated a claim yes i would agree with that and to to demonstrate that you would performed and dealing with the issue of intent which your honor discussed it's unclear of me asking who is intent the state was alleging we are dealing with here