now so mr mr holloway discussed that they were very close family friends that they travel together and they did all sorts of things together they wanted to cases together and she confirmed basically what all investors confirmed what you and he told them that he was president of cow wife absolutely and even family friends even people who have a curse in a relationship with somebody might take additional comfort in providing investment funds to someone personal friend who was representing himself as a as a c e o of a company otherwise that would suggest that he knew the company very well they might have both confidence in him because of their friendship it would be comforted that this company might be well hammer is spending the money however these were actual clients and the relationship i think was clear for the shia response relationship and by he it's his additional representation that he was the president and he was the owner of that company after and i thought they had a better chance of prevailing but to get a position of trust just because you took some money to me and it doesn't apply and it would apply in every single case where there's an investment and it's f of california never admitted as a member of the state part of california he was never licensed by the california border to accountancy of the certified public accountant he did not attend the university of california los angeles school of law and he extent that he had an accounting degree i have a lot of great san fernando valley he did not have a lot of free separate valley had conferred the degree on him i do i am senators having a degree conferred and being admitted to the bar and you just a law school that would have qualified him to take the bar at least the bar in california he also represented to at least one of the victims who testified that he had said that he had taken the bar but he had never testimony is set forth in the excerpts of record and it's holloway testified that she in fact relied on his being an attorney those statements that he was an attorney and an accountant and not doing further investigation and there was a case called i believe it's pronounced i know one out of another circuit there's a very thoughtful examination in that case it's very similar to  case in some of the arguments that were raised are one of them was that what was what the people that invested in were really relying on was the fact that the defendant was their friend and the court rejected that because it wasn't the friendship that was the basis for the abuse of trust and handsome and it was the fact that he had represented himself as the person who thoroughly owned and operated the company that he was asking them to reliance well i mean the reason they invested in this company at all was because he told them about this investment opportunity with with cow x his company if they had known that he didn't own the company they would not have  e post argument you provide the clerk of court with a letter saying not to exceed five pages then apply the transcript record citations that supports the government's argument that the victims relied upon the assertion that he was an accountant that he was a lawyer that he was a graduate of prestigious law school and that he was the c e o of this company and then we'll give the public defenders office five days after receipt of that to supplement their citations direct to the record that they feel my counter this point we do that and  no you're misunderstanding the character of the abuse of trust and handsome and the issue is when there is a position of trust the investors are less likely to do the diligence that they would ordinarily do if they had an arm's length transaction and that doesn't have to do with the friendship it has to do with the position of trust that the person healthy and in i am known as with mr hammer that position was he represented himself to be spectrum of bank teller versus manager we are arguing that this is closer to the manager rather than to the bank teller and in part because while the bank teller is out there in the open and subject to close supervision the manager is not the manager is more behind the scenes and in this case mr hammerless also not subject to supervision he got a hold of their money and that was the end of it they didn't have the ability to get the records of the current action records of the company in fact m which states that it doesn't have to be an employee employer relationship and it also doesn't have to be a fiduciary relationship with that unless the court has any further questions and concerns some of these investors that the hammers position and educational background really had no connection with their investment whereas other issues you point yes i think i'd go further is that i believe that there's no way that the circuit should decide that fraudulent transactions where there is no connection between defendant and the company he purports to have a position with if he doesn't actually have a position it to me would stand i think it is faulty reasoning for the guidelines to find that position he purports to have you do want  decision and will now proceed to myers against redwood city if council