which i can read your instruction as you saying to the judge judge you can't construct on three of those theories because the government has abandoned them seems to mean to say two things you said one you want them to misapplication so that if we rejected your argument of preservation of those other three you have a problem no your honor in fact i'm saying that the evidence supported a proof beyond a reasonable doubt of multiple theories including  that one i'd be happy to your honor the talent says that you must have an otherwise legitimate purpose in order to have an intentional misapplication in support of that he cites this court's opinion  some of the outer opinions that are cited by the defendant which actually support the government's argument and i'll get to that the issues coming out in the context of the court considering a challenge to a conviction did not fit the bona fides our exception both were instead an intentional mis application for an otherwise legitimate purpose in court here or t's because the court likely knows there was an issue with a consultant who was paid for work when that job and the job responsibilities because as the example i just gave if you put on my assistant who testified that for the first three days in september i was nowhere to be seen in my chambers i don't think you would have proved your job required her to do the farm workers testified that she was there at the farm so it was not possible in the jury found that they obviously found it persuasive at a testimony of the farm workers that it was impossible for her to be satisfying the night supervisor but that other people were called including mr al fairies for instance to cover for him because things would come up that needed to be done but mr roach it was not bear to do his work again as your honor stated the jury what's the best case circuit two thousand and ten case as well as the sanderson case in both of those cases the facts were bad individuals who were supposed to be working one place in fact were somewhere else in one circumstance i believe the employees didn't work at the defendant sister's home in another circumstance the employees were working on the private construction projects of the defendant so i would say that from a factual relationship was between s hard today us b c and the employees of us b c it can be this is this is the problem i'm trying to get my head around suppose the contract here head services that employee then i can see how you're harmed it wasn't clear to me from the evidence put in a trial which we're talking about here so your honor to step back or set in sort of was created by statute and read that's what the evidence showed and its job was to administer the public transit system for southeastern massachusetts they were not charged with operating it and so they get out five year contract here basically the issue was because these employees were not working with the bus company the bus company wasn't performing performing its service they were operating out of public transit system as best they could in the contract contract and i would also note that the testimony of mr pitching go and those who were sending him out to the farm with such a state he was being told off a bus company job he was a mechanic he was there to fix equipment and he was being thrown off of just like to finish a thread that i started earlier relating to the otherwise legitimate purpose prong with respect to all the facts there included the pain of ghost workers and in that case involved goes workers  who both work for a different agency than the one that was funded and both were paid with agency funds and some who just didn't work the hours that they were supposed to and also included payment of travel reimbursement to the son of  and how is it the government position that the c e o of the owner of any company that contracts with the government that that individual is in a position of trust with respect to the government agency is charged with administering but not operating a public transit service i think there's clearly a duty of trust both provided if it were a private entity that was can sort of was provided but also public hesitate to say that in every case i can think however it as i stand here right now the situation where there will be a position of trust with respect to a public entity i don't think particularly here because mr george was a think here there's not a difference that has any distinction to it i mean mr george in essence was the person who was being contracted i mean he used his political connections and his friendships in order to maintain the contract and also to control here as well as the nature of the entity with whom he was contracting because right was to run the bus service for the entire transit system in southeastern massachusetts and he was contracting with an entity that who dat itself because  arguments in its brief and would ask the court to affirm both convictions and sentence thank you very much