thank you in the me just say it's great to be back before this awesome battle this case is about whether and under what circumstances and defended may review or two reasons first because there's a fundamental legal issue that is presented by this case that this court has to decide and that is fundamentally the meaning of the word promptly or therefore being put on notice that there could potentially be something wrong he mediately hired a new accountant and said that under the un brattle this very complex tax scheme he provided documents promptly to the government and he went  a specific legal issue that presented i wonder why going to the court today is that this case cries out for this court to provide some guidance which has been provided in more than half a century now to dish of course about what has to be done in order but you know what is a reasonable period of time because it's seventeen months is good that basically almost anything would be you know we're out of the answer to the question is whether seventeen months is a long time or a little time should depend discretion and say that seventeen months was too long before payment will be admitted to the problem with on the one hand granting the government's motion to preclude it on the other hand letting them sum up and say that he saved millions of dollars and left them defenseless against that charge  so first of all obviously judge counting this court is well aware of the standard for harmless error which is the court must have a sure conviction that there did not prejudice the defendant but if i would urge the court to examine the record carefully with regard to the points and they're all is that on a couple of pages of bullet points in pages thirty six to thirty eight of the government's brief as to why they claim that there's harmless error here a number of them are fairly innocuous for example among the things they say that he didn't pay taxes well that's right well that's what we're here for others go specifically to the role of the accountant and that's what this case was fundamentally about the defense defen fundamentally two people who were tested whose credibility was attacked and so the part of the question that this court would it have to have is that is this evidence that come in group those credibly attacks have been more did that this is harmless error that is that dr doc knows allowed to put in certain aspects of it so he was allowed to put in evidence for example that he provided documents to the government somehow the jury was able to sort gosh mood this is totally outside my purview i relied on somebody i was taking so you know you're able to big for critical argue and here's but here's the truth tell me why it balance the idea of a jury instruction when it comes to this particular revert to the question of logically remote it said that is usually not the case and it that would be a usually undesirable approach and of course that makes sense because at the end of the day but what the parties  intended it big that is not what they said they said that he saved to be exact sentences and you can see them in their briefs and i can look them up if you want the exact language but the the words are that he say that it was done and it was and it was portrayed in a way that argument about how that part is argued about to have that should be more of a sentence a noun and so forth but either way they talk about a loss to the government they talk about a defendant saving money they don't say intent they say that there was a tax loss and the ok the risk of confusion if it was not well was his state of mind seventeen to twenty months later is or should be the question as well as his state of mind six seven years earlier when he was not paying respects it's number one number two let's the tru where months later after learning about a criminal investigation he all of a sudden pays the money that that's due that's he that's such a cover up for his crime and what are the risks the risks are very very real no harm no foul that's what he was the point he was trying to gosh you know when i got the subpoenas the first time i realize this but somehow when his testimony he never got there which makes it makes me question at least whether he could have merely said that tripoli um but he got all the for the jury what he wanted with that last point which was no harm dispute but the truth is sometimes people that have a lot of money want more than he go on so certainly mr mustard's argument with regard to the whole tax issue i very very briefly the following statements were made and were not helped by anything having to do with the years two thousand and six and two thousand and twelve by the government in word two and just you know what were the specific statements one scheme benefited him to the tune of millions of dollars he saved himself millions of dollars he saved millions of dollars if you look at page forty three of the government's brief dollars saying it at that time but again the point is that the government wants to say that it's ok it's ok to do that on the after happens you very hard that if  prior to him or any of this then you lose that's because intent is really the whole key does it shed light on intent no he doesn't or  i think the summation would still be fundamentally unfair so i think the answer the question is no i don't think that that i think having kept that evidence out on the grounds that it was and i don't think anybody would really argue that it has is really very inclusive it's just says that that probably about it was outweighed by the prejudice but there's no real question discussion of as you say the countervailing concerns what the prejudice would have been particularly given jury instructions but having said all of that