the morning morning honest i want to focus my argument on the employment restriction in this case because i believe it was both procedurally and substantively erroneous ask a question yes that is i saw  whether that happened at some prior time or something where she distributed revised condition with the new restriction if she's for i know in the the  is in the sealed up and there is a starting it s eighty there is the probation report there refers to the employment restriction i don't know of there was a change to that or not it's was convicted of well but i think it's important to focus on the difference between the crime of conviction in the business that he was and the crown of clear stand and that's the vacations that's yeah that's well that's occasion related arguably i think his vacation business on supervised release was he basically sold the case in packages and people would use the way they would get a discount if they would come to a presentation for a timeshare so that somehow was related to a time share but that's not what it was about i thought it was beyond that i thought she was concerned at the better business bureau had come back and had questioned had raised issues with regard to the they cation business that he was here and that although he even though there could be no finding at this stage that there was a fraud involved there in disha the same edition that applied in the earlier conviction about the better business bureau and the nature of the complaint is completely different in the original crime of conviction and what he was accused of doing is an album right out fraud he was contacting owners of timeshares and saying we have a purchase of you you just need to send us  advance fee and there was no purchaser there was no nothing he would take to advance fees and then they would just vanish i'm sure is for vacations i mean it's not like a completely separate business but the nature of the fraud is they were coming to him and basically they made up a story and in the business that he was in mind to after he pled till sentencing that was a period of about four years he started the business before that the so this was a business that was going on for years the nature of the business was he was selling vacation packages there's no dispute the record supports the fact he had a legitimate business he sold thousands and thousands of the case in packages as he pointed out at sentencing yes he's in the hospitality business there's going to be complaints and it seems to me maybe he had a sloppy legal run business that he didn't address these complaints at the time of sentencing he came before the court there was no dispute all the better business bureau complaints had been taken care of so in name they may have involved similar things but that was that's where the similarity ended they were one was an out and out fraud one was a business that was run maybe even i would say you know wouldn't in region to supply this chord it's an old decision but it talked about sharp business practices the decision there describe some similar practices they do use aliases and things like that it's the courts that it sharpens practice it's not fraud here i don't even know if it's that i think it's more he was sloppy he didn't you know he didn't have an accountant he didn't they would he would just focus on making sales but look here for us rather than  region supply that was different aliases didn't go to the benefit of the bargain that's the diff that's the important part the important part is in the original in the original for other he was convicted of he was he was the head of there was no there was no but it was a bogus it was a bogus  sales pitch here there was real product there were real strips the real self some people may have been unhappy unhappy ultimately at sentencing the evidence is that he took care of that so this restriction which was quite broad  deception would do it whether it's an airlines ticket business vacation business a a sales of cigarettes whatever i agree that's why if there was a restriction it had to be narrowly tailored yes you want to impose a restriction you alias that's a narrow tailored restriction that's not what the court to the other court said you cannot engage in any telemarketing business in any direct mail business and any vacation related business any time share in that this course cases i know you're out of his and though it's just it doesn't satisfy and come near to satisfy what is required to impose such a restriction in the record to show the types of complaints that have been made to the better business bureau where there were complaints about about fraud or whether they were complaints about others and i i i don't believe so i think to the extent that there was a reference it was that they you know they didn't follow up on the complaints they were getting back to people in the complaint there certainly the government says oh we don't have to demonstrate that there was for there was no find that well then if you're going to if you're going to base a sentence on that you need to have those findings you need is certainly a clear record and just that's not what happened but the condition pled guilty to the violation was he wasn't giving the records over to the probation officer so that she could check about to see whether financial records yet of his business well actually i think actually i think the actual what he gave records related to his business i think ultimately what he pled guilty was he didn't give personal financial records there were two different sets of records that he requested he certainly gave some records but that's that has nothing to do with the what about that seems to me it's a plausible argument that's being made that it's going to leave the district court is saying ok you're going to jail for five years that's one thing but when you come out you can no longer do the type of business that you are familiar with and i'm not sure i understand why there is just for occasion for taking taking him out when he comes out of jail five years later of the type of business finding is one thing but is that was there even evidence that his business was characterized as recent business was characterized by fraud your honor there are in disha in the record that gave judge co every reason to have legitimate concerns about how he was running the business and to be clear she does not need to find that he is conducting his current business in a criminal manner to be concerned about deterring his future behavior and protecting the public this court has raised in fact today the fact that one of the things that the defendant was doing was using aliases not just for the businesses not just changing the business name to avoid  poor better poor business and ratings but he was also using aliases for him and his wife to conceal from the public that they had criminal convictions and that but as i said before what does that have to do with whether the business that he engages in is a travel business or or or or some completely different kind of business yes that's true that's fraudulent activity and but it has nothing to do with whether it's a travel business or some other kind of business so i don't understand i understand that's a concern but why is it a concern that justifies saying after you get out of jail in five years you can't do the type of business that you have  and in fact right what i hear the court advocating would be actually even a broader employment restriction because if she is going to say the use of aliases is not just tied to the vacation business but it's tied you could use  business and so therefore we're not going to let you conduct any of your own businesses that would be an even greater restriction it would be more rational that would be more rational yes it would be greater but but they would be a they would be a  logical support for it but but where's the logical support for saying you can't be engaged in the kind of business that you are that you have experience in your honor i think the logical support to use going to defeat somebody who is fraudulent by nature who is just a just a fraudster is going to find a way to be a fraudster in one thing or your honor that may very well be the case i think what's happening here is the judge code is trying to balance protecting the public deterring the defendant engaging in future fraud but also allowing him to rehabilitate into society to continue to make a living to support himself and his family two million dollar that's that's correct your honor and he also also meet the obligations of the restitution which i think it is very clear in the record was was a large reason that he received his probationary sentence in the in the first place those are judge code i think in trying to balance all of those things did not want to just law the defendant offered his knees and say you're not ever going to be able to work ever again or the only work you can have any sort of work in which you are only working for someone else i think she's trying to strike a reasonable balance between what she has seen in this offense conduct which is the original fraud related to timeshares and then the serious concern she has was this vacation related business trying maybe to go back to my first question was there anything in the record of the better business bureau that showed that the that the concerns of the better bureau business better business bureau related to say two to two fraudulent activity particularly pertaining to two vacation business that some some of the kind of thing he was doing before you're on i'm not sure that it's in the record although i know that the defendant was aware of the types of complaints that had been made and so but i don't know that it's in the record before licenses for the for the florida business as well as the use of aliases and as well as the level of compliance that's that's correct your honor and in fact many of the things that you honor has just highlighted are the same as with the original fraud which in fact was found to be criminal which was again the use of change frequently changing business that the nature of this vacation business was at one where they were collecting money up commission going to the company your honor my understanding is the the travelers would pay for an opportunity to travel for example within the next year to a particular resort so that would be money upfront that's correct your honor that's my understanding and that's why sometimes my understanding is that the and i think this is missed the defendant himself discusses this that sometimes he would ask the customers would ask for their money back because they weren't able to travel or because the resort  shows i believe that the defendant discusses that at the sentencing when he talks about how he's addressed how he has addressed the consumers complaints and saying that he has refunded the money to those individuals or it did involve individuals who just to go back to judge ronnie just to go back to the point you had raised the plea itself was on the violation was personal financial records at his plea at the actual plea forty four he indicates that he had given six months worth of business statements that the problem was that he hadn't given personal financial statements but there's certainly that they were intermingled i know but in terms of the probation officer knowing what what his business is a matter of fact i point out  original sentencing all these all these various company names were in his sentencing commission these were not he didn't name and that's that's first of all a judge in terms of what the besant better business bureau better business bureau complaints were at this is in the it's sealed appendix eighty one the complaints were are that for not responding to complaints of the customer not being satisfied with the with the response what the underlying complaint is no evidence as to there's no question there's no dispute based on this record that the defendant had real vacation packages he had contracts with timeshare companies to be able to provide the time shares that he had record it's in the seal dependants and so i think that the problem and i think doug like you hit it on the nose there is there are restrictions that could have been imposed that were narrowly tailored to address concerns here there not to restrict the broad restrictions that were imposed here to basically prohibit him from what he centrally sales positions which is something that he knows and if he's going to make restitution that's something that he should be permitted to know