all good morning your honor just my name is alan ross i'm from electro pennsylvania the drovers the home of arnold palmer is the home of mr rogers and in addition to that it's the birthplace of professional football in any event total one hundred and thirty six million dollars but the only amount to be good could be attributed to my client was nine million dollars and that's what the indictment says that he had a ninety million dollars attitude when he indeed organization that that's the percentage that he got for the money or the percentage would have been five percent and five percent all of the one hundred and thirty six million dollars of that should be seven million dollars but the nine million is what he was actually involved in the organization in doing been and for himself that we believe he should be responsible for when honey cut the actors that they were dealing with they had didn't have the kind of control that you're accepting the record shows this person had right right we have because carpenter used all the money for his own benefit he was using that to try to gain more money was investing in rob schemes to try to gain more money and that's why we distinguish ourselves from carpenter is  that my client did not use this money for his own benefit it was just passed on to where it was going and that we think that that's a distinction we can made because that's right corridor should not apply in this case because it's you know when i go back and look at the record this issue as come up in various breasts since the early ninety's one of your clients convicted in the original case correct yes you've raised today you know i would also point out that the quote a good case which they're relying heavily on is is actually a civil case and not a criminal case so there's a distinguish between those two things those two we believe that any is about to add to and we believe that's true because this is a constitutional issue this is so it's actually a watershed statutory and jurisdictional interpretation that was simply wrongly decided by the lower court the lower court decided this based on the fact that they believe that there was joint and several liability and we believe  that because the government was seeking to do something which on a cut from it is to be done negril business he had investments in that some bargain he had investments in switzerland and they went and took all those funds as well even though those funds did not arise from any of this operation and that's why we good morning your orders may please the court sachar committee on behalf of the united states this morning and i'd like to begin with the honeypot question although it's the government's position that the court need not reach that issue because of the various procedural bars there is interpretation and it doesn't create a jurisdiction problem here the district court unquestionably had jurisdiction to try and to convict mr scotia under the general jurisdictional statute for federal criminal cases twenty  says that you can't have joint several liability well respectfully are you could says that you can't join and several liability without more you cannot have a coconspirator who doesn't receive any of the proceeds of the crime conspiracy he exercised dominion and control over these funds and to i believe it was just thompson's question concerning whether he was using these funds for his benefit he was certainly using these funds for the benefit of the money laundering conspiracy he was operating on behalf of this drug cartel and i think there are a couple of points in that regard st the case law and preparing for this morning's argument i would note that there have both rejected the jurisdictional argument that mr sicko should is raising here and also suggested that hike that does not apply to the mastermind of a fraud scheme the principle is the same here mr sicko sure and his wife jointly control the accounts through which forfeiture which we cite in the brief to the even setting aside how to treat masterminds generally here the argument is about all of the phones that were forfeited or funds that he had direct control over exactly and i think that's very consistent with this course which incidentally is a criminal case that's a wire fraud case it's obviously not the same statute but the principles that are articulated by this court and carpenter apply here the notion that he had the use and benefit of these funds and he used them for the purpose of carrying out the how you cut him down yes funny that doesn't apply because the facts on top of that there are of course all reasons that the court doesn't even need to reach that issue because there isn't a procedural fit vehicle to raise a value reserving the question that there's something unique about the court could reach that issue if it's so inclined