and a four hundred fifty thousand dollars yes i will your honor but for purposes now that is the property that i'm talking about at least partially both of those were raised and noted in the montana motion and then of course with the same motion and by the way attached that motion was a declaration expressing their concern that they would not be able to get paid if if  these funds or some of these songs were not released and that they could not proceed if they did they did accompany their motion with that declaration well what happened then was some jones i guess there was  monsanto hearing scheduled in jones this court but something intervened there was something that happened in between that time and that was distress commissary before judge burns and this is the crux of what why mcrae was torahs saurus read and she represented she asked she asked burns to put off appointed counsel until after the monsoon here what happens if if if you're right on this what we reverse and then do what everybody that they were going to seize everything the gray had not only a five hundred fifty thousand and then burns went and slammed the door shut by saying ok we're going i'm freezing everything in this point at that point because they were assets in addition to the five hundred fifty thousand and the government admitted that they might not win at a monsoonal hearing that's respected five hundred fifty thousand dollars and that was the statement made tourney's were going to represent him knowing that all his assets were frozen there i mean if you're working for free you know i mean if they go back and have the hearing to get the money unfrozen and then if they don't get it unfrozen then they can he didn't even have the money to go get it on for you but had to hire lawyers to ask to have it i'm frozen well i mean we can only i think we can only address the way it's played out here that's a hypothetical i all i have is the facts and this case and i think that by the time th a meaningful time and when mcrae needed the funds to actually either retain a lawyer or just let me gate the monsanto hearing and then the was really concerned about the sentencing and gave a lot of lip service to the potential for prejudice however in the end it's limited very very little of it allowed most of it to come in  i can understand how any jury confronted with this case and the other act evidence that was allowed to flood it could have would not have been confused and how they could have decided the case based on the on the relevant admissible evidence that was directed at the fact scheme with respect to the evidence stemming from mccrea one the judge in denying the defense objections said that you know ultimately the judge said that all this evidence was in which i don't think it is but i think the more important question is under for all three with respect to the mccrae want evidence the judge failed in a sense for three analysis to even mention the fact that mcrae had stipulated to being under indictment for mailing wire fraud and money laundering with respect to mcrae one that's in the is completely sufficient to you know and should have been limited at that point to the stipulation but it that investor was able to stand up and say have they known about the indictment and the bankruptcy they would have not of invested i think it goes without saying that anybody who would know that mcrae had been indicted for testify to if i felt involuntary bankruptcy protection the shift from chapter eleven to chapter seven mccrae signature under penalty of perjury the introduction of i felt total assets and liabilities as well as liquidation of the business any for all three analysis would have would have had to include the fact that the stipulation and with the stipulation allowing all this other stuff to come in was just objection to the court declining exercise jurisdiction and they stated that they would then go and file their motion and before judge miller who was the district court judge that had control over the proceeds that had been seized  the court in front of that charge so then he could make a determination as to who had the rights to the money and whether or not mr mcrae had the right to release a part of those funds for his criminal defense but have because there were other claimants to those funds it's not clear on the record that mr mcrae was the owner of those funds right and that's what the hearings about the hearing monsanto hearing is to determine whether or not court i understand that your honor but in this case there was an agreement on the record that all parties understood that the appropriate forum to file the motion was before  that really is the key to the case because he's complaining that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to be heard but in fact he did and he elected not to go before the court and raise the issue and there pelton doesn't have any assets to pay counsel is entitled to montana hearing at that time he would be but he never made the request and if you look at the record the reason and he didn't and he really has no basis to complain at this point thank you i'd like to now turn it  brief specifically it goes without saying that most people had they known of the bankruptcy an indictment would have decided not to invest with mcrae having nine or ten witnesses repeat this fact was unnecessarily prejudicial slightly intertwined but devastatingly or unnecessarily prejudicial evidence excludable under four o three as records were of course the standard is not unnecessarily or devastatingly prejudicial it's whether it's unfairly case it was simply to show the nature and the source of the funds that were confused into mccrae to mcrae himself placed that let me back up for a second it i clear that the district court at least with respect to the criminal indictment believed that it was intertwined evidence with respect to the bankruptcy protection the court's language was a little bit  in opening statements when he said that you will see that mr macrae put in much more money than he could've ever gotten out in addition with respect to his cross examination of responsible for not honoring stop loss limits and that in fact he engaged in heated arguments with middle and euro again either through munificence or through his attempt to portray runners in this case i think it's also important not to lose sight of the fact that this is not simply a material concealment case there were material misrepresentations as well so to the extent that united states forces would provide support for the proposition that material concealment alone could form the basis of mail fraud or wire fraud conviction we have much more than that in that case the misrepresentations included past performance it included how long he was in business it included who the owner of the company was although mr own indicated that not all investors were told the same thing some investors were told works we're told some things others other thing importantly in the government's supplemental excerpts of record from pages three twenty two to three forty seven there is promotional literature that suggests that again that he was in be very significantly excludes the infusions of money that both of those accounts that macrae directed into both of those accounts lending the appearance of course that conviction in the other case this is not not an instance where say for the non greatly affected aspect of the sentence he would be out  the only my only response would be your honor that one of the twenty traits letter responses i believe the government did indicate when mr mccray was convicted  i think it's important to note that the government boldly stated its stance in papers they had proven mccray three fraud beyond a reasonable doubt epic mccrae to trial i think that's a pretty important statement and in addition that in fact the infusion money came from another investment mccrae the infusion money was not characterized as a result of training process it was not misrepresented as anything like that in fact nothing was said about it and most investors had no idea what you know where it came from or what it was and that's the rents correctly i think kept saying to the government why isn't that enough why do you why do you have to bring in all this other stuff i believe that council might have been very first of all mccreight i want to just note mcrae wasn't on trial for committing a ponzi scheme he was on trial for charges of wire mail fraud in conjunction with the fact investors you know he lied  and i want to i want to just note say despite the court's reservations the court allowed the government to elicit from state a testimony about his initial contact proceeding and if that wasn't enough david stone man financials credit compliance manager was allowed to testify about the nature and scope of remit between financial and wy the fact that financial did not establish a separate commissions account calculate the commission three wy and even more damaging the court allowed the government to elicit from stone a litany of money transfers i mean this just jumps right off the transcript page if you're not otherwise not in the white limited to the