case the real simple issue before the court on this case is whether or not twenty three zero five are ginia was the primary residence of mr olson or that he represented that to the tune that he should have been convicted in this case it is our position that he never made that contention to fema or to any other investigators such that he should have been convicted of that offen and the fact that they developed in this case which show that he made certain representations that certainly could be named in appropriate misleading sneaky  represent or state that point zero five was his primary residence because the first application they filled out which is on page five of our didn't them question a actually i'm sorry question eight as we address in in question twelve state is your primary residence and he put snow and actually in quotation marks it's a secondary address and so that was the beginning of the fact this case and in some follow up questions by fame some representations that he may require an inspector to come to joplin to meet with mr olsen at the site where this house was no longer there this was during the tornado of two thousand and eleven that wiped out a lot of joplin but then inspector what blankly testified at trial and made notes asking mr olson this your primary residence he goes no my friend i live my mailing address is on park street i believe that's my primary grid residence is i just some property at this residence and and that's what i'm here seeking relief for and there are some follow up things and i know the government's going to argue that all of these are representations to try and convince famous investigators that twenty three o five was his primary residence and he may or should be responsible for those statements but those statements don't lead us to the point that twenty three zero five virginia was his primary residence and that's the only thing he was charged with in this case  there is case law that was cited in my brief and i think it's very important on this specific issue because of the four cases i cited specifically talk about statements that the defendants in that case indeed made a false statement to the government however he was not indicted for the false statement he may but for a statement which could have been false if the government adequately established the identity between the defendant as corporation that case  involves a defendant who basically said he was self employed when in fact he was employed by the incorporation and i don't remember the circumstances about why he made that statement but the court in that case essentially stated is false but he was actually employed by the corporation therefore that's not actually a false statement and the government didn't meet its burden when on we talk about working for a corporation with something that international wor of service industry business deal with the science guy to rhyme sky and when the court basically said that he was attempting to be misleading in making that statement but the factual distinction was that he technically  not self employed because he was employed by the corporation and so the court in hixson said essentially we think you're trying to be sneaky and we think you made a false statement but you did not make the false statement that you were self employed because technically you are not and just in this case again we know mr olson did not state in documents or to an inspector the twenty three zero five virginia was his primary residence because in fact the state the offices stated it was not my primary residence  i have another house as my mailing address and i completed the form and which i stated was not my primary residence now the other things he did such as a i had property that i had put it twenty three a private genya is video equipment things that nature and i lost that and i would like to have money back for that due to fame and benefits you know if the government had charged him with falsely claiming he lost property when they showed he didn't you know we may not be here because that's a different question and i certainly think the jury could have drawn from the facts of the case that that may have happened but certainly didn't happen is a twenty three o five which india was not its primary residence because  but it turns out his mother was actually dead and because she was dated legally impossible for him to own it own in joint tenancy and therefore even though he was probably trying to do it and i think the term that the court cution and what the government did in this case essentially was take some what they call representations that mr olson made about certain things to lead that to basically say he was trying to represent twenty three o five a primary residence but he there were two times when he was specifically asked either in a form or from an inspector directly to his face is twenty three zero five getting your report or your primary residence he said  factors i don't think he even made the statement to get us past the first element and unless the court has questions i reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal you are if you are here from the government argument to the court is virtually the same argument that he presented to the trial jury in this case and that was a legitimate argument for the trial jury that you know mr mr olson didn't make the specific false statement that the government charged him with hell ever after hearing all of the evidence in the case the jury found that even though mr olson initially filed his fim application for stewart property he ultimately attempted to fraudulently represent to fema that that was his primary residence because he had moved into it the day before the joplin tornado now the difference between this hearing here today and the and the trial is that the defendant is asking this court to accept those facts as being true one page seventeen of the appellant's brief five he states at best taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government the evidence shows that the defendant submitted some docu that were not factually correct in a presumable attempt to recover property that may not have been damaged in the storm however that there is in the facts in the late most favorable to the defendant what the evidence actually established is that the mr olsen a found out that he could file a claim to fema the he could get reimbursement for property that he could only get reimbursement for property if that property was in his primary residence he didn't find this out until after he filed his initial claim as stored property then he found out that fema can consider his place that he had lived for more than six months out of the year to be his primary residence if he had just moved in mr olson attempted to convince fema that he had just moved into the property and how did about jews is there a council has pointed to a couple of documents in which the is no he did not and the government admitted this and stated it very clearly at trial this is not a false statement case this is a disaster fraud case the the offense of conviction was ten forty by eighteen u ten forty and eighteen u s c one thousand one the way this case was charged is that the defendant made false statements or representations that twenty three or five virginia was his primary residence now if i could call the court but you don't but you don't have any you don't have any explicit statements or representations by this appellant that this was his primary residence the government submitted that there is an affirmative representation and that is that page a forty two of the government's appendix this isn't this is a document which the appellant submitted to fema this document purports to be a letter from a nonexistent landlord named mr ritchie and mr ritchie this is property management companies and apartment complexes around the joplin galena and baxter springs area i do maintenance repairs security and collection and leasing i have recently relocated to the baxter springs area of kansas one of the properties i maintain was located at twenty three or five south origine avenue in joplin missouri on the twentieth of may last i signed a lease agreement with mr scott b olson for the amount of three hundred seventy dollars per month with a negotiated deposit of three hundred lease was to be for only one year and occupancy prior to the first of june was authorized as long as the utilities were transferred into mr olson's name no later than me thirty first i returned to the property on the twenty first saturday to check on the progress of the painting and witnessed mr olsen moving his personal property into the residence the residence was subsequently destroyed on sunday the twenty second of may two thousand and eleven by the f five tornado  joplin i hope this clear mr olson's residency status and the arrangements surrounding the rental respectfully dean richie dean ritchie did not exist mr olson submitted this letter to make a representation as he admit cannot pay out fines unless it's for primary residence she testified that fema considers a play a damaged wrong to be a primary residence if the applicant can prove that they had moved in prior to the event the tornado so in other words mr olson found out that his primary residue if he could prove that he moved in fema would consider that his primary residence he represented it to be his primary residence and now i just i just don't see anything in the letter that that has anything to do with whether it's a primary or secondary residence can a person have more than one resident a person in the eyes of fame yes yes your honor but the whole purpose that mr stewart mr olson was filing the application was get money from government and there was only one way so if a person thousand application with thema and it doesn't qualify and in this guy's sions with with thema fame advisors well you don't qualify because this damage like an implied misrepresentation well your honor is more is more than implied it is expressed because once he found out that it had to be his primary residence as the jury found he submitted those documents as to attempting to establish that if i could briefly address because i know it is i'm running out of time the caseload that the defendant cites and the four cases involved all of them involve basic yes or no answer in either one either forms or depositions and that's what mr risley wants to make this case about you know simple yes or no answers and the government stated up front at the beginning that mr olson initially his application was certainly falls in that he didn't lose property but he initially claimed to have lost the property from something he described as a secondary residence it was stored business property he tried to change that later on now you know gagan involved the seventy four jag more that he had  he's had actually transferred title to his girlfriend so so as a technical legal matter the statement that he made that he did not own the jaguar was true here the statement that mr  made that he was that he had moved into the property which was false the documents to be provided indicating that he had moved into the property were all false and fraudulent now the next case of business was the joint stock ownership with the it with the deceased mother again the defendant in that case stated that he didn't own any any stock jointly with his deceased mother and as a technical matter that was correct because you can't even stop with the deceased person jointly prior projects that he was working on you know basically self employment but he had a company he was technically an employee under the of the company and so under state law he was not self employed and so again it was technically correct in moses and this is an interesting one because there were two counts and industry really does not discuss count three on which the defendant moses was found guilty which is more similar to the charge in the instant case and that finding was up held by the by continuously live with her for the whole period where as count four which was wood which was ultimately you know was going on that the conviction was improper the defendant had me the representation defied by notice i've run out of time can i finish my statement yes you may be  defendant had made the statement that he had not separated from his wife the filing of his his petition which was technically true here the statements and the ridge especially the representation of the defendant were making was making to thema were clearly fraudulent thank you very  ly the court to address a couple of the arguments mr moore henry made it's not our position that the we're trying to change the facts it's our position that the facts of this case don't lead to a legal standing where this case should be humans minute to the jury clearly this case does not have jury appeal from the defendant standpoint because lots of the things that he did in here would be considered truth or sneaky but again he didn't the talking about fame i can consider there are lots of and i know that the government has stated that we're trying to make our own facts there draw a lot of assumptions to the it literally talk about a forty two there's certainly an based on what the evidence was but as the court noted that letter doesn't state that this is his primary residence the and it was interesting that miscible own testified at trial that says well fema can't consider his primary residence if there are certain factors to come up but the c of four which i believe is on page two of arden them defines primary residence as the dwelling where the applicant normally lives during the major portion of the calendar year or the do well and that is required because of proximity to employment including our group culture activities that provide fifty percent of the household income there is no provision or definition that says it can decide that based on factors they can grant primary residence to somebody who hadn't even lived a day in the residence because that was certainly not disputed i mean again as a  going to make it clear that if they don't charge the right way then the conviction shouldn't stay and regardless of whether or not the defendants try to be sneaky and i would just ask you to review what we've presented and the case law and come