a license for that existed in the massachusetts registry of motor vehicles that was commonly referred to as a merger process a merger process had not existed or have existe in previous times and was changed at or about this time with regard to the charges in this particular case mr coffee was charged in a number of mill fraud counts in a ho mr gall was an inspector what he basically was he and specter to determine whether or not the big which the license would be operated was ten feet by thirty feet he had no what the task he had no other  function at the massachusetts registry at that particular time he did this on a number of occasions in the government has acknowledged that on each and every time he performed this task he did it correctly fronts were engaged in what they call sheen am merger transactions now with regard to the shia merger transactions the basis for that was who have been the ten or eleven in this case was that actually existed at that time she had them it process to merge two businesses in order to move a license the it was a distinction between the facts alleged against mr coffee and what would be conceded i missed the veiny who was the head of that program what he would consider to be a proper merger the difficulty the record supported the conclusion that your client knew that this particular merger was a sham there's no basis for a conviction and you were there i believe there is what would be assume then that we thought the record supports the conclusion that your client knew this particular merger was a sam would be the basis for reversing the conviction that the funds that we see were was if i can just before i say that in order for her to be a sham there has to be a process in order for him to know about it he has to know what the process is we're talking about have been a crime because you could do anything you know i'm not going that well that's what i'm saying is that there was a it was a policy and what the claim is that what made this different then the policy that was explained by mr fein which we would consider the legitimate policy that the stink should be between those was whether or not the seller emerging individual whether or not he was going to retain an interest in the business but the interest the nature of the interest that he has to maintain is never described meaning does he have to quiet to have an active participation is you required to have a financial  investment in the business is you required to do anything else other than act as an officer of the cooperation we're not talking about individuals we're talking about merging corporations so if one merges a corporation and the one of the parties takes no active role it doesn't mean that he hasn't involved in the merger the the best situation i think it took to answer your question is to the conversations that up put out in the appendix of the them in this particular case with regard to one individual that's an individual by the name of roger one whose last name is not known he acting as a c i in the in the roger conversation when mr rad explains the process to roger he explains about buying it all you have to do is this and then six months later you can take the individual from  license came you can take him out of the copper ration less than a month later the government sends raji in to talk to mr gar in his white any talks to us the god that was a composition of the government did not introduce evidence but instead transpire and he wants roger two times during the course of the conversation and roger then asked the question what i really want to know is is this legal and he says yes as long as they can transfer the license and i think that sets his mindset he expresses the the the procedures that should be followed when he continues on that the government contends that what he did is showing yeah we have to show by those licenses the contention is that they are buying these licenses and they are merging but the licenses are not for sale gone knew that that licenses would be sold th on this record we have to assume you know so i'm sorry well that's what i'm trying to focus on whether your argument is that on this record we have to assume it was a legitimate merger when your argument is simply even if it was knew it was not a legitimate merger go also knew it was not a legitimate merger is there any way for you to win if you assume that you know ok but i think that you don't assume that i think that's an incorrect assumption an the question there was no direct evidence none whatsoever it's all either consciousness of guilt and it's that one statement what have you got for me well the question what have you got for me means that i don't know if i've got anything coming moonlighting situation what have you got for me it has to be you have to understand that whatever reason given you is in response to an official act in this particular case even the indictment that's an allege that question whether that statement shows a jury could rationally find we think he was in on it because in order to be in on it it would have to be a prop somebody would have to have accepted the right to make it f clear to us that it was a sham process because the document was forged ok it's nothing before that number one they take eleven out there's nothing the air about any of the other transactions there's no indication that any of those other friends acted or improper ok the government can say they were they can allege they were but there was not one single word of testimony with we got to any of those of the transactions so we have a one circumstance a one transaction situation in which mr almost a god does is into indicate to mr read who might be interested in getting a license and license was coming from the individual's name from whom he came was never mentioned was never talked about there is nothing it says it's simply an after the fact attempt to approve by argument and in our view there's no reason for the court to address  the payments that he received were exchanged for official acts first and foremost i'm rod describe scott's role in the scene to roger if the governments cooperate informant and he says gaza in my pocket will pay god he'll do whatever we want go x but i the trans out of his role of the in the transaction i think that alone you know the fact that god's prepared to do whatever it wants in exchange for money shows that he's using his  so i think the jury could infer from that that the only reason that i was able to make that referral was through his official role in his credibility as the senior field and specter for the r riis i don't believe they would be any reason for him to be looking for potential targets for the scheme i believe that he there's a reference in the record to report that would receive about the stations and stations opening and taxpayer data and what this court focused on was the fact that the defendant wasn't using that data for any sort of purpose he wasn't passing it on to anyone he was just asked in the day to satisfy his curiosity and the court said in that circumstance that  page one fifteen of our appendix passing that information on rot he tells you not looking at this and trying to locate potential sellers you know i know that it's important find these people and we can make a lot of money doing so are there's no evidence that he performed any inspection incorrectly that he approved any service station for a license that didn't that didn't have the proper measurements or didn't have the proper equipment that's correct but but you know th i i agree that he has his performance of the inspections in accordance with army policy it's not started here and he was exploiting the inspections i think that alone supreme forming the faster than they ordinarily would have been performed is sort of an official act that he was being paid to undertake i think the registry has set up this situation for corruption to happen i mean it's it's rather a hauling that the only way you can prosecuting why did matters get to this your honor i think if the scheme had been in place the licenses that were being diverted into the scheme would have gone to the waiting list people would have and you know it is even a two or three year how many how many licenses were actually issued gentleman i believe the cop was sixteen hundred or fourteen hundred license as and there was there was a provision by which could if they were in an area that didn't have a existing station that performed inspections that they  that makes sense all of this sort of creates a climate in which it's easy for corruption to have you agree asking you though whether measuring the day in this room since would be enough to count is the act that makes him liable for eating in the bed your honor i think measuring the day if he knew that this was part of a share murder and he knew that france was receiving money as part of a scheme that he measured bay and approved the bay with knowledge that the station owner was not entitled to a license because he had received a license through a share merger that yes i said i'd also like to point out that there's there's a separate independent theory that supports the even if you were inclined to find it misguided not receive official payments or do not conspire with the france for the fonts to receive payments in exchange for