is now seventy years old and has no criminal record no involvement until this case she was convicted of making false statements and misprision of a felony and then the arguments in the br record the charges arise out of the application that was made in effect to for the government to subordinate its way right correct and their statements and that with respect to the value of these pieces of equipment i don't think anybody contests are incorrect yes we do contests that you think the piece of equipment we're worth yet when you think you can tell us that the statements were not you say the statements were not false correct and contempt don't tell me why because ms olson was told that these were the value no i'm sorry let's she may have not believed them to be false i understand that to be your defense but we start out with the premise that thought there was evidence that they were in fact used equipment had been had been produced instead of the pieces of equipment for which the invoices were given and that put aside your clients knowledge for a second because i want to work backward seemed to me there was a lot of evidence in this case that the statements were incorrect that there was at trial one individual mr sanders who was responsible for inflating the values he's the individual right so i'm trying to get i'm trying to look at the elements of sufficiency and focus on the ones that are at issue in this case he testified that the values were incorrect the jury was entitled to believe him so the only question i think is whether or not your client knew the value was really correct is that is that a fair statement i can i can i can go with that i can see that ok so but we do contest that those were ok that state failed to earlier on she asked that some statements be corrected so some internal records be corrected because she learned about something that had to what what what had occurred in this case  corrected or urged said the these are inflated these are over these aren't worth this much the government is submitted that the that she knew that they were worth less because ultimately they ended up leasing the the equipment rather than purchasing it but the even that wasn't proven that there's no details of this lease there's no how what was the term of it what was the value of it nothing about the lease is just its lease instead of instead of outright bought but i think you have to assume that means you're required to assume that therefore it's worth less but there's no proof that it's worth less  this mean who bore the responsibility of maintaining this equipment and fixing it i mean the owner could have done that so we don't have any government failed to present any evidence of what this lease involved and who bore the responsibility fixing these items directly relate to the thing that she was charged with which is two specific pieces of evidence and she corrected these mistakes that mr boyce had been engaging in she made him pay back the money that he had some bad activities and she knew mr abuse had been in charge of buying these two pieces of equipment she didn't have any specific knowledge of what he did with these two supposed piece of equipment that's correct  in fact what they did by convicting her but they're not entitle to say that she knew that mr bruce was engaged in these other wrongdoings therefore she knew that well let me play this out and had tested that they were correct and that she got the information from him and she knew he had lied about a bunch of other stuff is that enough to establish the facts of guilt in this case there's a premise that's wrong there it's not that she knew that mr sand like a bunch of other stuff mr zanders is the one who gave the values but mr abuses other you know i don't know that he so much that he lied about about a bunch of stuff i mean he didn't disclose some stuff  well correct but but i also yes and for the misprision count i think that there's no evidence that ms olson knew back in two thousand and eight that mr abusive committed a crime that and that the government didn't present what crime has to be a federal felony can't be a misdemeanor can't be any other sort of offense and not just this wrongdoing and being bad with the books and things like that if we use specific false names that she knew back in two thousand and eight there's no evidence of that the only thing they have is at trial they asked you knew he was convicted but there's no details of anything could have been a misdemeanor could have been a state violation so there's complete lack of evidence regarding misprision account to what she knew at the time of trial is irrelevant to what she knew it to in two thousand and eight she didn't conceal anything she didn't know that these in the invoices submitted by use were actually false and once again it's with her in her mind good morning my name is right of randall i mean this is to us attorney and i represent the united states in this case if i may respond to your questions or in the issues raised by counsel in reverse order starting with the miss prison which is really the second issue on appeal first of all kathy ruiz the f b i agent testified at the trial they determined scripted pages sixty six to thirty seven exactly what mr abuse had been convicted of making false statements to the united states even though the u s d a did not know she was a full partnership she went to every meeting that mr wells had with the u s d a and part of the applicant she's also familiar with grants and loans from being a previous u a employee when she went to sign the grant paperwork originally wanted to do things that she was president in head was signed by both mr abuse and mr wells is the warning that is set out in my brief where if you that the question is what what's the evidence that she was aware that the statements and it is this all turns on the statements in the support nation application if you will the letter that goes with it which says these two pieces of equipment are worth that she discovered when in september two thousand and eight when she was doing the financial analysis that mr abuse head got and kickbacks from the grant money voice for the disbursement in the end of two thousand and seven and that is what mr sanders testified about that all of that equipment those values he had been asked to basically inflate especially  until november of two thousand right so that she had prior knowledge of the falsity of those values she knew by the time she submitted that document which she carried all the values and it was just easier to focus on the glycol and the c places to carry all those values across all of the documents submitted to the u s d a even though in january of two thousand h she knew that those were even as sets of the u s d a that they could put a lien against because those items were released she then weren't assets at all they were not paid for by the grand funds because mr abuse head used money that was supposed to purchase them in a different manner to actually fund his restaurant and to pay other items that were the stock and beyond but when she submitted this nov eighteenth letter to the u s d a asking them to segregate the lien she is representing that they have any interest in all of the assets that she has listed and that those values are quite minimal ice it's like eighty five thousand dollars less than what is actually here in addition she knows that the money given pursuant to the grant didn't  go to pay for some of this equipment it had to come out of other sources so she knows these numbers aren't correct i'm sorry it's supplemental etc record thirty five it's exhibit nine it's the only which goes to the jury instructions it was the only false statement that really was the basis of the charge rockefeller what i would submit is that one of the things she did a cover up this activity was when the grand jury grand jury subpoena was issued to her in two thousand and eleven to produce records for the rug company it's at that time that she submitted the first invoice and has it marked supersede so that is when she is definitely not telling a person in authority that those numbers had were falsified that the monies hadn't gone to pay for them she then testifies that those items were cancelled because all the items on the first invoice were now at least the reason a jury didn't have to believe her testimony she says when she was asked about the items she testified to page six sixty the transcript that was drawn number two and that was fifty thousand note though the c r p was for eight hundred thousand seven hundred fifty dollars and the glycol chiller for twenty five hundred dollars are actual values that were placed in that equipment and she also testified that she knew those were all pieces of equipment that were going to be very problematic mr wells testified as to the same thing one of the records she does not produce during the search during the grand jury subpoena but later found pursuant to a search warrant is a least equipment not only were the documents not correct the values weren't correct and part of that is where she is itemizing the items from the first exhibit that released list listing those values she puts the clean in place system eighty seven hundred and the glycol chiller at twenty five hundred and so the jury could very easily know it could imply by this time when she's in september two thousand each she's aware of uses activities basically the jury had no questions in this case they they were also able to cart compartmentalize the evidence causing this on monday morning they went out a little after noon on monday afternoon and came back the following day around noon there were no jury questions and what they were able to show is that they obviously understood the evidence but that is there's not really what i want is that really matter in a case where the defense says the evidence was legally insufficient the jury may have it that's a question of law for us not a question for  think submit that if you look at per continuing pattern of behavior as i laid out chronologically in the brief there is more than sufficient evidence to show that she knew those statements were false and she went to a great deal of effort to protect mister regarding that point i would like to point out that the one of the elements is that a felony in violation of the us code was committed as charged in the indictment the jury had no idea what was in the indictment they were never read the indictment never told what's in the indictment they made this finding in a vacuum that they can't he committed a felony charge of the indictment when they don't know what's there regarding the valuations i think still there's a difference between that was pointed out at trial between the clean in place unit and the system and the  valuations that she perpetuated this fifteen thirty five thousand had to do with the complete installment of the entire system for these things which is a tremendous my money fact she testified that is probably undervalued and we didn't have time to touch on the jury instruction errors but i would like to point out that also that you cannot tell what findings the jury made the instruction on making a false statement didn't identify a false statement at all so we don't have any special verdict we don't this was a very long complicated trial the government just threw so much out in these other allegations of not responding to the subpoena completely and things like that they just try and paint her as a bad person rather than submitting actual proof they they submitted other evidence which just shows that mr bruce committed some wrongdoing she fixed him covered up she fixed the wrongdoings that he did and there is insufficient evidence of of both of the charges and