Legal Case Summary

. In other words, if they have struck the conduct, does not itself or not, taking an isolation, count as a violation of the substantive criminal statute, then it can be, so, three-seat, one-on-one, hands-back. So that's a very narrow approach. The third circuit, and the third circuit, and the third circuit, would be then that we couldn't have a, you see, one-on-one, enhancement. In case, the following, given the period of thought, if it mentioned, if you like to investigate or get into the government. Yeah, but not a lot of other things. What would be the real principal then? Well, the real principal, the real, they would actually say that we could, they could be circumstances then. But where would you draw the line? That's the hard part of this case, is really in my news, is sort of where to draw the line. I think you're right, and let me offer some suggestions. First, one line, and base-end, and senseless case, because it derives from the language of the application notes, the language of the application notes require the concealment of this particular relevant application, the concealment of evidence from an official investigation. So that's what we're sort of fired. Now, in this context, in the SEC context, we're very blind between what is a investigation, and I don't know what that was ahead of us. I understand your point. So, we got a compliance exam, who say, as opposed to an investigation, and we conduct it by different divisions, but suppose the compliance exam is aware of the possibility of criminal conduct, and they're making the required considerate, and they're going to get all the records that might pertain to that as part of their compliance. And there's a bit of space, so it's supposed to compliance the investigation on, which is to be reviewing public documents and asking for a few two-tune records. But now that one book, because they were concerned, and they're worried, that you said would not be an obstruction justice if you without documents to that group. Well, in terms of, I don't think it turns out sort of bugs in the head of the regulators. I think a better rule would be, what is one of these, one distinction between the kinds of investigations. Right, but I'm obviously, I thought, I think the first days of the judge law will be, will you have any of that? That's what I thought. No, that's, that that is part of it as well. If it's not charged as relevant conduct in the indictment or an act, then you're not in the air, the clerk doesn't help. Doesn't matter. I'm sorry if it's not charged, and you may be. Yes, if that's a key factor here, because the government obviously is in control. I guess the clerk would not help you. That is the question. I believe clerk would still help us because clerk has two parts. And one of them relies on the fact that it's charged in indictment, doesn't it not? It does. Okay, and that's the part you're relying on. Well, the clerk, yes, clerk extends to both the ruling context where it's just part of the offense and the ruling of your context where it's a compromise part of it. Exactly, and you recognize it as not a term, as it could only lie on the first part. And essential to that was the fact that it was charged in indictment. That's correct your honor. So they were too worried to have the tool not extend indefinitely

. Your simplest answer would be, well, the government doesn't charge in indictment. Except that, perfect, the order of our asses. But that makes sense. I don't think so. That's what I think it is a two. I think it is. I'm not suggesting that there's any sort of silver bullet here so that there's a witness test, if it's any, but in the accounts of it's not. It doesn't count. However, what is important is the code doesn't have the factors here. Here we have a charge indictment. That's how the government saw this as part of the offense. And we have, and I would suggest to your honor, Jeff Walker, that we do have a meaningful distinction in culpability when we look at the kind of from the standpoint of the defendant, because we're judging his culpability after all. So what I would suggest, and with respect to your hypothetical judge Walker, is that what is important is there is a distinction between someone in regulated industry essentially keeping regulators in the dark, or under the facts that we have here, essentially putting his head in the sand at the end of his scheme and not answering the sins. This is so different from keeping regulators in the dark in the normal sense, because he did believe that the jig was going to be up, and therefore it was done to put off, if you were, we're not able to achieve that. It would be inevitable. You didn't want to face it and put it off. I don't want to become too much of a psychiatrist into this defend its mind. But it doesn't just really might have treated other regulators in the past, but not disclosing things or treating somebody in the first document or something of that sort. This was at a time when he believed he was under the jig, and he made the up. Things are helping with that point. I wasn't clear from the papers that we had in front of us, but it seemed to me that his part of his delay was to help the redemption by some of the favored investors. Was that correct? I don't believe that's born out in America. Because there was a larger amount, remember, that goes back 100 and then there's only... It's not clear exactly how those numbers would arrive. That is my description. The truth is, over the course of the entire scheme, I don't think there's any change in conduct or intent that can infer, because this reason, of course, the scheme, was about 100 million dollars was taken in. And a bunch of money was still... So $20 million at the end of the scheme was what the loss was. Now here in this January, it's in a much time frame what we had was $100,000 coming out, and money going back in

. So I think it's in line with what was happening all along. How do we do that in suggestion in the record and in front of that effect? Now with respect to the JPM not, that is what we do know from the record here is that the sort of reality had been, and this company had been subject to compliance and data nations like this in the past. Obviously, his fraud was not caught that way. You all know that. I'm saying, see from the end, I'm not going to dive in with you, but with other compliance examinations, also alleged in the indictment that he, like other regulators, you know, no, no, no, no, it's just this one, it's just the one that's in paragraph 11 and the indictment. I have paragraph 11, right? So if I hadn't charged in paragraph 11 with the case, we'd have... I don't think so, you know, because what we have here is, even without the indictment, what we have here is essentially what more is down to is, we do not have an official investigation. That's not what we're trying to say. So there are many different successors, the opposite and first with compliance or whatever. The opposite. The first argument I readily can see that if once the enforcement division gets involved, that's an official investigation under the guideline. Now, there's still a problem in terms of impact between the test yet, but what we have here is what the surface investigation doesn't count, essentially compliance investigation. So if we see what one doesn't count, it might be yes, this is really the regulatory compliance procedure. Now, which is not to say that it wasn't wrong, I'm pretty sure you're going to be list that people shouldn't know about it. I know we have to stay there for some of your comments. The life I have to go back to what you just said, and the case may be not be different because after all you have two arguments, both respect to the first argument. If you didn't have paragraph to remedy the indictment, and the indictment didn't say that the activity, the criminal activity extended through all in or about April 2009, you still think that you can prevail when you're first argument? I still think we will. And maybe you can tell me how to do the exemptions. Okay, because what happens is in Clark, the governing case is to a consensus person, this is just what happened in the working, in working with the conduct was not charged in the indictment. What happened was that it's 10-year fraud, just look in this case, and the jig was also distinct, the defendant tried to get all of this to leave the line in the lockers. Why is that even different because that is what the government investigation? I think the only case is that it's a marginally of help, because it's very difficult to understand what the facts were from the opinion. The six-circuit case is I think a great deal of help, to the six-circuit case, and to its help to you is that it was charged in the indictment, and still, in the court's sense, the third circuit rejects that. That's correct. And how much suggestion on what is critical there is the six-circuit, which you hear on the court's squarely rejected, and the third is the test isn't going to get to the co-curnace conduct. That's what the six-circuit said. In fact, that's what sort of lowering on the fourth circuit is said more recently. However, by co-curnace to sort of a very clear what you mean, it means that the action itself could end with charged, for the same violations. It's sort of like multiple violations of the substantive kind of opinion. It's quite clear. This was, and it's different. This could take a little bit of a deception of the other one, or the way the other one was charged in the agreement or statute

. That's the correct answer. Okay, I understood. I didn't know that your first argument was relying on the co-curnace. I thought, because I thought you could see it, that this was not co-curnace. And I thought that the part of the third circuit case upon the general in line was the first document, which says, here the conduct that is cited as an obstruction is actually actually the part of the underlying charge defense, the indictment states. It seems to me that pretty heavily rely on the fact that it was in the indictment. I'm sorry, you're not feeling confusion. Maybe I can just step back and then get you some whole picture of why in this thing is my argument here. The fact that you're absolutely correct, Clark, the most important aspect for us in that case is the indictment language aspect. I absolutely agree with you on that. Well, it's just, but without you, without that, it still is helpful. Here's why. Because Clark adopts the incircuit of her transmissions, both the lawyer and the mere, and she's gravely ruling her, which I have to say is the case that's spawned on with our case, actually, and the court actually is ruling her, set aside the whole issue of whether it contains a larger, whether it was the state of the United States, that's not relevant to our case. So we found that it was a distinction. I mean, I think you're absolutely right. But I was trying to suggest your honors. I think they're more to draw out of Clark than just the indictment language. And of course, then the other aspect of it, which is the rejection of Simeon now, and which is critical here as well. If I may or not, I see on my comments on, we had an explosion of this. Simeon, you should have, we've been getting that. Welcome, Dr. Nure. It's fine with me. Yes. We're giving government some extra time too. We're equal. Fibon. When we give you, um, set an extra minute of this, it's a key moral of my hometown. With respect to the impact aspect, I think there's a worse degree agreement, frankly, between the parties, as we boil down through the briefing. And that's the Jenkins. The third, the seventh, third turkey case, or Jenkins does impose an aeroset, circular aeroset cases, an impact requirement. And that is when instructor conduct is focused at another proceeding, not the federal criminal proceeding, but a parallel precarious or proceeding, stay a parallel, similar between whatever else, with the obstructive conduct, is focused somewhere else. There has to be an axis

. And Jenkins says that an axis is some impact on the eventual federal criminal case. I think that's what I already under the motion, then, to the guard, I was not the patient now, it's like, six years ago. I thought the test was, it was properly calculated and likely to toward the investigation of prosecution and offensive conviction. That's correct, right? That's the test, isn't it? Um, that is the test, but that does not supplant Jenkins. I think it's consistent with it, and I'll try to explain that. First of all, of course, that's that, the common ground here is now we are already unlike a board, I think, but Jenkins means, and what Jenkins holds. And you should now appeal as, as Jenkins did it all, I think, and the party issue. And it is good all, because I believe it's consistent with the guidelines. And first of all, as I said, if you look at the data point here, when you look at the guideline amendment, what it has to do with is the general proposition of prerion posts of obstructive conduct. Jenkins, that was not an issue of Jenkins. The sensing efficiency in any of the Jenkins or third-term A-Hills, knows they were challenged, Jenkins after 2006, as being not been law. But what's probably even more critical here for us, and what we look at today, is that the government's bargaining changes on this notion that somehow in 2006, what was the figure, a focus on actual result, or actual impact of obstructive conduct, now we come some sort of just intent-based situation. And this is not the case. It's always been law. Before 2009, 2006, there was a lot of legal effect. It doesn't speak to intent. And it's more of an objective test. I'm sorry, yes. The whole test is purposely calculated and widely to afford the investigation effect. So there's sort of the intent part of it, and there's a... What's your focus on the result part of it? I'm going to use up a child, but you're not going to have to act actual. Exactly. So your focus is on the act, but let's suggest your honestness. Before 2006, that was still law. Attempts, it's always been the case that under this kind of guideline, as written, there has been no result required. Attempts have always qualified for 3C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1C-1 and the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the same thing as the like thing as the same thing as the same thing That's going to make a big difference. I'm welcome, the opportunity to. I'm sure, I'm sure. So can I ask you just one more question? Well, responding now to the second article that you have, am I understanding what you say, even as the government's right with respect to the now no longer recent amendment to the guidelines? And Jenkins isn't good law. My client should still prevail in the second argument. Does that mean you're saying? Absolutely

. And it's true. It's really or because. Because the intent, the likely to the fore-language is a high line. It's a significant bar. Now, it's not defined in the guidelines. But what we have to do, as we always do, in 3C1.1, the third circuit, and I'm sure your whole circuit is probably similarly taken to the fact that 3C1.1 is somewhat ambiguous to take more tests. And so what we have in the application is we have a list of things that cap as obstruction things that don't count. And a court has to face a situation where there's this fit in the constellation and the spectrum. So what I would submit to your honors, that's still essentially the ink. Pretty cute. One guy in the trial and not testified, just set there for synths, we enjoy synths, and I'll say that's the process. And otherwise, the government will be here to see who will listen to your answer. I do. I suspect they will. And they said, and you are. This is not a function of failure, do you? That's not, I understand. It doesn't mean you reach everybody else. That's right. Because, yeah, because, and I think this does point up a valuable fact here, which is that, there's no question about acceptance. There's no question. So it's a suggestion. That's right. It's not a failure, it's a result of a failure. It's a result of a solution. Well, the parties couldn't come to agreement because Mr. Young and I submitted it. Right from the start, it recognizes that this is an opportunity to have a solution to a lot of side-to-side areas. I assume I want to ask you. Yeah, thank you very much. Appreciate your answer. A little bit of time

. Mr. Gray. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Paul Gray with the government. Mr. Gray, can I have my phone number before you get started? I think it's clear. But, the factual basis here is solely non-disruption. And so, there's no distinction here that the defendant created a new false document. That's correct. The difficult opinion specifically noted that it was making to decision on obstruction following on Young's failure to turn over the document required by law for the press. So, which will be false documents? Right? I'm not going to sit on the record. No. But, I thought that it was pretty clear that some of the documents and that they were tied to some of the altered, formerly made documents that he used in the course of the scheme. That's different from false accounts that he was known that. That's correct. I know that he did not kill. Right. He's not exactly the exact same. So, my previous opinion made the nose and internal over the course of investigation, except for internal over the document. That's correct. Okay. So, is all about the anonymous code? Yes, you're on a fairly exact, yes, but okay. I just want to give it to you. And, you have to question about a different case between the documents here. I brought out testimony from the SEC chief that if the particular documents they wanted, the investor lists and the quarterly statements were the ones they did not get. And they specifically asked for those and they got boxes with some documents in it. But they never received those documents. And that's why they had to go to the third parties to get the under-information, continue their investigation, and that would have followed up. Right. They never received the documents that looked at it then off to be a proprietor. What if we shut down these office after the second day, the third day of the examination? It just didn't answer the phone

. Would that be a obstruction of justice? If the context of this case, if the investigators had lied, giving them with the documentation, trying to know the documentation that says, under a lawyer required a given such a record. I mean, he didn't give them a tool. It may have all applied, yes. Well, maybe they're not all the way away. Well, I'm interested in something that didn't happen, so I'll just say, actually, I'm not sure what didn't happen. I'm trying to see the difference between human and blind with the examination for two days and producing, let's say, dirty, sudden developments. And then deciding the general order of preventing good to get his out, I'm just going to go back to the bottom of the time and wait for the air to fall. I'm interested in that, so that you just did it until the front. I'm interested in it, and that's not all that happened. Because if you can't get your glass out, you can hit it as steel. Well, yes, you see, we're trying to get the help of steel that was an obstruction of justice. No, you can't get the steel. It's a matter of law. I absolutely is not a matter of law. But steel was an obstruction of justice, everything you see could be a matter of law. I'm not sure. I'm not. What we're saying, that failed to turn over the record, that would have chipped the SEC off to the floor, that could only then spend someone's going to other places together records during which she stole wasn't obstruction. Now, and during this, you could use steel, that's just a result of it, but that's not the crime. Now, word house, continue to steal and help you with obstruction of justice. If you can help you with a 35-year-old, a search box, say, yes, then, but how is it helping you with obstruction of justice? Because it's because, as you are saying, the test now, under the amendment, is whether or not you purposely and willfully undertook to obstruct the investigation. Yeah, but you have wamed your back and forth in the district court and in your papers here, telling us about what investigation, what investigation do you have to prove that he obstructed? You must see the investigation or not. That's your position, not the government's, or the public case. The investigation of the facts. No, no, no, no, no, no, but what investigation has to be the end-lawed? Is it you have to be obstructing the criminal trials and the charges where you have to be? Yeah, I think that's the end-game you did that. Is that right? Okay. What's the eye-medium? Pretty for saying now. That's not the end-game you did that. And in the context where I said the government's criminal case was not obstructed, was in the context of having a discussion that, Mr. Yaw, did not do any actions to fool any federal criminal investigation. Directly. Directly because, you can't say anything, it's not the criminal investigation, and something like, because that's not the test. That's not the case

. He did not make the court direct the criminal investigation. He was not denying the documents to the criminal investigation. That's correct, Robert. That's what I'm saying. I said, but indirectly, it isn't a delay to criminal investigation. Because, obviously, what evidence shows is that? The only evidence that is on the record is that the investigation by the SEC started on January 19th. Right? We served our criminal search warrants on April 17th. The same day, the SEC issued its complaint against Mr. Yaw. It came in and let everything out. He came in on the end of the matter. And it made a foul indictment for another year. That's correct, Robert. So the record... It is just a pattern from a record that the SEC and the Federal Eosatari levels are talking, since we're search wrong, because on the same day, that they are complaint. That's the mutual investigation. Okay. Are you going to, just the first paragraph, or are we going to talk about the second winner? I'm going to put it on that. Oh, no. Well, Clark, which is eventually a lies upon, is a very narrow opinion. In this circuit, the law is that Code Colonist War Identical Conduct does not narrow the obstruction. And that is not what we have in this case. We have a 9-1-year-long pod. One of the things that you're going to falsify in record for the investors, why should we be able to see how you can look at this two different ways? I mean, you could say, it couldn't be... There's only a bit of documents. It couldn't be less pleasant in itself, Bill. So it wasn't in itself, you know, in the kind of charged offense. But on the other hand, it may or may not usually involves a scheme to defy what. The matter is, is there a get your fellow jurisdiction? But it's basically a scheme to defy what extends over a period of time as many facets

. And arguably here, one of the facets of which charged in the indictment was, concealing from the investigators in April. The correct one. We included one paragraph as notice to the defendant of what had occurred. I don't think that leads... There was no other notice than what has occurred. It was alleged as part of the charged offense. Then there was one part, one free-low period of a 10-year-card. Well, it was the obliging in the park in Sabina, the six-circuit case which you haven't even addressed in your brief, and in which the third-circuit rejected. So it's probably how you distinguish this case from Sabina. Well, when I'm not sure, I'm against the government, that the third-circuit quite rejected Sabina. You know, maybe the two percent said that. Of course, it's actually a pretty particular from the Judge's Court of Disappinion. I thought a pretty direct... It appears that a conflict exists between the court of appeals where the sixth and eighth circuits, and dealing with your respective interpretations and sentences and guidelines, when you're persuading by the states reasoning rather than the sixth. I reckon that's a pretty direct rejection. I'm usually a real weird rejected, some other honor, just to say that we try to let that be. Well, that's not true. It's a good reason, because there's a conflict. But what I've seen here is a conflict in the factual resolution of the case. The eighth circuits, which was the indication set up by the defense lawyer, said that vacancy-procuring appeared in that to be... to be simply concealing assets with the event of conviction. I think if we only had the eighth circuit cases, I'm not sure if disagree with you, because they're very hard to understand what the underlying facts are in those cases. But what I'm asking you about is the sixth circuit case, the more recent case, which has, I think, facts struck in the right way. So what are you saying? It does work. What do you want? And the third circuit rejected that. But the third circuit came to a different result from what they find to be the struck and con. The third circuit, all you know, the third circuit right now, is an identical conduct. Does not support being asked. Well, how do you get that to be the only rule that took our graph here? What? What? If you didn't have the moral of all the paragraphs, you could have ended the opinion. Here, the comment that is cited as an obstruction is actually actually as part of the underlying charged defense, the indictment states, blah, blah, blah. Production of the most recent circuits occurred within the cited period, and thus, as encompassed within the time the crime was set to occur. That is all applicable here. It's only the next paragraph that you say is the holding of the case. Maybe you're right, but that it's not to me. It was so readily apparent. I'm not sure that in the cleric, the indictment included completion of the document that turned out to be a stroke of conduct. I'm not so sure that it's written correctly. I understand, Clark, being saying the crime rules that the person was convicted of was making an old statement that I'm a citizen when they were not. And they handled a document which said they were a citizen when they were not. And the court decided that's one crime. That's really two acts for one crime. That is when your point there would be that that under the court terminus language that that could have been charged, separately, that that particular act alleged to have been the stroke of conduct was it itself, the crime of crime was charged as the crime. That's correct. I would not have been finitly undying the separate indictment under that action, based on that action for this new one. I would not have bought a separate indictment based upon that action. It's simply two pieces of evidence to prove the same crime. Why are you more stingy than set on the citizen and the other a fish document? I would not have, in fact, a lot of this is what we're charged with. We don't disagree with that decision with the court based on the narrow hold. We're simply saying in this case, it's not this is not court. Is it you position that that was saying the fact that this was named indictment? That it was simply evident that this is like all the other enhancements that existed guidelines that pertain to various aspects of the criminal conduct. And I sort of opened my first question with this. Yes, it's complicated. It's a complicated scheme involving many players, all of these enhancements that and there's an structure of justice as part of it. Yes, sir. That's kind of the stuff. That's right. You're position is the guidelines should take you to account this kind of conduct. Exactly. And that's why this is a little easier questioner. In the third case, young admitted that my conduct was a museum trust it was sophisticated

. Does not support being asked. Well, how do you get that to be the only rule that took our graph here? What? What? If you didn't have the moral of all the paragraphs, you could have ended the opinion. Here, the comment that is cited as an obstruction is actually actually as part of the underlying charged defense, the indictment states, blah, blah, blah. Production of the most recent circuits occurred within the cited period, and thus, as encompassed within the time the crime was set to occur. That is all applicable here. It's only the next paragraph that you say is the holding of the case. Maybe you're right, but that it's not to me. It was so readily apparent. I'm not sure that in the cleric, the indictment included completion of the document that turned out to be a stroke of conduct. I'm not so sure that it's written correctly. I understand, Clark, being saying the crime rules that the person was convicted of was making an old statement that I'm a citizen when they were not. And they handled a document which said they were a citizen when they were not. And the court decided that's one crime. That's really two acts for one crime. That is when your point there would be that that under the court terminus language that that could have been charged, separately, that that particular act alleged to have been the stroke of conduct was it itself, the crime of crime was charged as the crime. That's correct. I would not have been finitly undying the separate indictment under that action, based on that action for this new one. I would not have bought a separate indictment based upon that action. It's simply two pieces of evidence to prove the same crime. Why are you more stingy than set on the citizen and the other a fish document? I would not have, in fact, a lot of this is what we're charged with. We don't disagree with that decision with the court based on the narrow hold. We're simply saying in this case, it's not this is not court. Is it you position that that was saying the fact that this was named indictment? That it was simply evident that this is like all the other enhancements that existed guidelines that pertain to various aspects of the criminal conduct. And I sort of opened my first question with this. Yes, it's complicated. It's a complicated scheme involving many players, all of these enhancements that and there's an structure of justice as part of it. Yes, sir. That's kind of the stuff. That's right. You're position is the guidelines should take you to account this kind of conduct. Exactly. And that's why this is a little easier questioner. In the third case, young admitted that my conduct was a museum trust it was sophisticated. It was a loss that a number of people wouldn't agree to the obstruction. But let's say I had written a paragraph, why was the scribing with the wrong conduct concerning his victims? If I put on a line of fear of saying, and by doing this, by giving them false investments they would then lie to them, he abused their trust. Under their theories, under the defense theory, they can then say, it's in the indictment. The abusal trust is in the indictment. No, it can't be denied. As I understand it, there relying on Clarks, which deals with obstruction of justice. And so my paragraph in Clark and with the Clarks rejection of a six-circuit case. And I still, I really try, but I don't understand your distinction between this and the six-circuit case. So we're trying, so we're like, I'm saying that there's a lot of facts here. In fact, he was innocent on our last theory. We would agree with some of them. We do. And that you are the ground you are the four-circuit and done, King of Earth, some of the confusion. We're here, though, not to discern what the correct view is, but in the fourth-circuit. Yes. Or in the sixth-circuit, but in the third-circuit. Yes, you are. And in the third-circuit rejected Sabino, which he says exactly like his case. You're right. I'm saying the facts of this case are radically different than the facts of Clark. That's what I'm saying. Is it, is it, is you have theory that Compt Harris moves, if you have a two-year scheme that the obstructive conduct must encompass entirely up here? I think that would be too broad statement to make her our eight-year-old. I'm saying, you're right. The point is, we move on from Germany. The code code is according to Clark. It means identical. Well, ten years is identical to two years. We said, well, maybe not ten, but I'll try to figure out what less than ten is a dead little ten. Right. If we short in the indictment that was part of this main scheme to falsified workers to the SEC and create false documents to the SEC, that still may be an abstrote of an innocent without a promise. Just like a mutual trust applies when I put that in the indictment or when a leadership had applied that put that in the indictment, if the guidelines are conduct wronged, if you take what's written in the indictment and have that ruled the guidelines, then you do the right with a number of the enhancements. You could do it with leadership, you could do it with a mutual trust, you could do a little sophistication because it's all in the comments in the comments, it's a real legal indictment, but the indictment doesn't rule. The conduct does

. It was a loss that a number of people wouldn't agree to the obstruction. But let's say I had written a paragraph, why was the scribing with the wrong conduct concerning his victims? If I put on a line of fear of saying, and by doing this, by giving them false investments they would then lie to them, he abused their trust. Under their theories, under the defense theory, they can then say, it's in the indictment. The abusal trust is in the indictment. No, it can't be denied. As I understand it, there relying on Clarks, which deals with obstruction of justice. And so my paragraph in Clark and with the Clarks rejection of a six-circuit case. And I still, I really try, but I don't understand your distinction between this and the six-circuit case. So we're trying, so we're like, I'm saying that there's a lot of facts here. In fact, he was innocent on our last theory. We would agree with some of them. We do. And that you are the ground you are the four-circuit and done, King of Earth, some of the confusion. We're here, though, not to discern what the correct view is, but in the fourth-circuit. Yes. Or in the sixth-circuit, but in the third-circuit. Yes, you are. And in the third-circuit rejected Sabino, which he says exactly like his case. You're right. I'm saying the facts of this case are radically different than the facts of Clark. That's what I'm saying. Is it, is it, is you have theory that Compt Harris moves, if you have a two-year scheme that the obstructive conduct must encompass entirely up here? I think that would be too broad statement to make her our eight-year-old. I'm saying, you're right. The point is, we move on from Germany. The code code is according to Clark. It means identical. Well, ten years is identical to two years. We said, well, maybe not ten, but I'll try to figure out what less than ten is a dead little ten. Right. If we short in the indictment that was part of this main scheme to falsified workers to the SEC and create false documents to the SEC, that still may be an abstrote of an innocent without a promise. Just like a mutual trust applies when I put that in the indictment or when a leadership had applied that put that in the indictment, if the guidelines are conduct wronged, if you take what's written in the indictment and have that ruled the guidelines, then you do the right with a number of the enhancements. You could do it with leadership, you could do it with a mutual trust, you could do a little sophistication because it's all in the comments in the comments, it's a real legal indictment, but the indictment doesn't rule. The conduct does. And I'm sorry I'm making my phone clear. I'm just naming the... No, I'm just trying to say that our clue is, I don't really disagree with all the ruling in Clark. We can't. No, I'm saying if I'm going to sit down at least, I would not have been ruling from the structure enhancements based upon the piece of paper to send the same thing to one of the... But don't get to it. Maybe a side deal where you can put a little Clark issue and... The kind of conduct. How was the investigation? First of all, was this... Excuse me, just a minute, we're giving you seven more minutes now. So make sure you know that. Is this an investigation? And such was a compliance exam that is retrieving the regulated setting, in which there was a... You know, with only documents from the examiner. Right. And should not make a difference? No, I don't think it does matter. Please determine investigation. But if it's a compliance exam, every fraud will have to be involved because it will achieve advances. And sure, one of which films are under investigation for 10 years of conduct and they have the examinations every two years. And the investigation starts and they can't get the evidence. So that's how many they get. And then they..

. And I'm sorry I'm making my phone clear. I'm just naming the... No, I'm just trying to say that our clue is, I don't really disagree with all the ruling in Clark. We can't. No, I'm saying if I'm going to sit down at least, I would not have been ruling from the structure enhancements based upon the piece of paper to send the same thing to one of the... But don't get to it. Maybe a side deal where you can put a little Clark issue and... The kind of conduct. How was the investigation? First of all, was this... Excuse me, just a minute, we're giving you seven more minutes now. So make sure you know that. Is this an investigation? And such was a compliance exam that is retrieving the regulated setting, in which there was a... You know, with only documents from the examiner. Right. And should not make a difference? No, I don't think it does matter. Please determine investigation. But if it's a compliance exam, every fraud will have to be involved because it will achieve advances. And sure, one of which films are under investigation for 10 years of conduct and they have the examinations every two years. And the investigation starts and they can't get the evidence. So that's how many they get. And then they... The reasons are on to it. It comes out that they've been wanting to all along for the last 10 years. The examiner. Under those circumstances, if it doesn't matter, or if those are investigations, they need an obstruction of justice. Do you have any... All the way through the period of the indictment? Right. Every two years, in the time of the investigation, I had an examination. It's three-regret about about it. And any day, night. I can't be bothered. It's not because, in fact, this was an investigation. Well, in fact, that's where it was. It was a cause examination. And the record of the deal we are on that. Well, that's the problem. It's that it was done by the CIA, or whatever that is, as opposed to the enforcement division. They looked to be just the regulators were in. And saying, you know, we're coming in this week. We won't let you go. It's the way you're putting it. Well, unfortunately, at the time, we need to develop the record on that. Because this was not discussed in front of this record. We need to discuss that and we'll get it out discussed. The discussion for the district court appuzzles me. The government's not having any arguments. The arguments more preserved. I guess. It seems to me that the arguments about sentencing from the district court are very different than the argument from the press about sentencing. I understand. I understand. But that's unusual

. The reasons are on to it. It comes out that they've been wanting to all along for the last 10 years. The examiner. Under those circumstances, if it doesn't matter, or if those are investigations, they need an obstruction of justice. Do you have any... All the way through the period of the indictment? Right. Every two years, in the time of the investigation, I had an examination. It's three-regret about about it. And any day, night. I can't be bothered. It's not because, in fact, this was an investigation. Well, in fact, that's where it was. It was a cause examination. And the record of the deal we are on that. Well, that's the problem. It's that it was done by the CIA, or whatever that is, as opposed to the enforcement division. They looked to be just the regulators were in. And saying, you know, we're coming in this week. We won't let you go. It's the way you're putting it. Well, unfortunately, at the time, we need to develop the record on that. Because this was not discussed in front of this record. We need to discuss that and we'll get it out discussed. The discussion for the district court appuzzles me. The government's not having any arguments. The arguments more preserved. I guess. It seems to me that the arguments about sentencing from the district court are very different than the argument from the press about sentencing. I understand. I understand. But that's unusual. We're at a cut-through. But... The record does not develop on that. Remember it is, on course examination, from Bible to said, it was a cause examination. The information they took, when they continued an additional examination and his investigation was third party, and up to the complaint. The district court. Is it a night-night-okay, was there any evidence about when there's a cause investigation? No. I thought there was scattered evidence about what a cause examination means. Only a footnote as to what the S&C described to me what a cause examination is. And I don't think she has an after-work. Yes, yes, yes. The one little discussion that the one a cause examination is. Our foresighted was the testimonies what I was getting at from the news that characterized you as something of it that caused examination at one point. Is that not right? I believe my foresighted examination, the S&C witness, when asked what the office of routine said, no, it was a cause examination. But did not describe it, and I admit that I misargued it. Redirect, getting an out of show. Very addressed to the Nexus bargain mark. You know, how did it turn out to be the good investigation? So, how is it likely that the medical investigation? Right. The language is quite clear that in Jenkins, they apply an actual, actual theory for the online words, the obstruction of the investigation. The amendment does not require an actual work. It requires likely events that's clear, the statute of the word. How was it likely to do it? That's what the language is now. Mr. Court found that the word, what the statute of the word, it did for it. Okay, why is it the district court? I'm not saying you know what the statute court did, but how you say the criminal investigation that was likely to throw the criminal investigation? Only because, as your author said, in an indirect fashion, the criminal investigation was scored. But what the record raises, the mid-the SEC complaint came out with your search warrant. And should you assume that every time you refuse to turn out a document to a regular, that's likely to throw it into the criminal investigation, if that document would reveal criminal conduct, that could be or would it not be, you're going to have to reveal criminal conduct, or it's a non-space man, not a state, it's 20 pieces to have his foot, but other facts it might. It's difficult to say, and you know what you wouldn't even draw a big deal out of it like to the floor. But some of it's like, if it was criminal, if the evidence was quickly based, it would appear to be uncriminated, one could, could, could, in fact, the show criminality and it was withheld, then that would be likely to throw it into the criminal investigation. You should exactly what the District Court found, and what we think, or what the District Court found, it actually did thwart the investigation of the conduct, and I don't know that everybody else had the documents, and you could, but as soon as you knew you had the documents, you could really go to the other, you could go to the account, and you could go to any of the documents, you could go to any of the documents, and you could get the documents. I don't think it's the enhancement for obstruction, depending on how quickly the SEC could get the documents for a part of the further investigation

. We're at a cut-through. But... The record does not develop on that. Remember it is, on course examination, from Bible to said, it was a cause examination. The information they took, when they continued an additional examination and his investigation was third party, and up to the complaint. The district court. Is it a night-night-okay, was there any evidence about when there's a cause investigation? No. I thought there was scattered evidence about what a cause examination means. Only a footnote as to what the S&C described to me what a cause examination is. And I don't think she has an after-work. Yes, yes, yes. The one little discussion that the one a cause examination is. Our foresighted was the testimonies what I was getting at from the news that characterized you as something of it that caused examination at one point. Is that not right? I believe my foresighted examination, the S&C witness, when asked what the office of routine said, no, it was a cause examination. But did not describe it, and I admit that I misargued it. Redirect, getting an out of show. Very addressed to the Nexus bargain mark. You know, how did it turn out to be the good investigation? So, how is it likely that the medical investigation? Right. The language is quite clear that in Jenkins, they apply an actual, actual theory for the online words, the obstruction of the investigation. The amendment does not require an actual work. It requires likely events that's clear, the statute of the word. How was it likely to do it? That's what the language is now. Mr. Court found that the word, what the statute of the word, it did for it. Okay, why is it the district court? I'm not saying you know what the statute court did, but how you say the criminal investigation that was likely to throw the criminal investigation? Only because, as your author said, in an indirect fashion, the criminal investigation was scored. But what the record raises, the mid-the SEC complaint came out with your search warrant. And should you assume that every time you refuse to turn out a document to a regular, that's likely to throw it into the criminal investigation, if that document would reveal criminal conduct, that could be or would it not be, you're going to have to reveal criminal conduct, or it's a non-space man, not a state, it's 20 pieces to have his foot, but other facts it might. It's difficult to say, and you know what you wouldn't even draw a big deal out of it like to the floor. But some of it's like, if it was criminal, if the evidence was quickly based, it would appear to be uncriminated, one could, could, could, in fact, the show criminality and it was withheld, then that would be likely to throw it into the criminal investigation. You should exactly what the District Court found, and what we think, or what the District Court found, it actually did thwart the investigation of the conduct, and I don't know that everybody else had the documents, and you could, but as soon as you knew you had the documents, you could really go to the other, you could go to the account, and you could go to any of the documents, you could go to any of the documents, and you could get the documents. I don't think it's the enhancement for obstruction, depending on how quickly the SEC could get the documents for a part of the further investigation. It's moving on to actions that cause the SEC to possess it and request the documents to go with the court of law, and it's not evidence to the District Court of the lie, and it's funny. I think this court will lie it on the fact that they did not come over the documents for a lengthy period of time. Should we go with the argument, is that likely to throw this different than likely to impede or interfere with it? That is a different test, and we're familiar with those in all sorts of ways. I mean, other statutes, but the one thing the investigation means, there will be no investigation. It's likely to stop the investigation. I think maybe I'm reading too much into the court. I would say that it's about a semantic issue between four and three. That's an unusual word to use. I mean, it is... It's in the statute of the law. It's in the statute. The weed. That's why it's important to us. Right, and all the changes are future for her. It is, in fact, even the District Court's written opinions that the investigation was going to be, but in effect, what we shown was that it was... And the reason it was sorted is that they had gone there on day and walk, and gotten a record that they learned that the investors pull the saying, they have more money than the accounts that they have. In this case, we went over on day two. He would be shut down in that fashion, because it delayed, and they then go to other places, they were through it. And what is not a crime, is not an obstructed crime to steal. Or really, that was his intention. This part of his intention, the other intention, maybe, has not been seen in a way that's not set both for it. I'll sit there until it happens. But we believe that these, incessant fair, eternal documents, the handing over partial documents, they're claiming that they're going to be there on the arm or they're not, which, forcibly, is to see it expand more time, going through the record of the other places, it is what's sorted their investigation, and then directly out. Now, I say it didn't work on the standing there, but technically, we weren't having a check in this discussion. But we think you'd have a finding by the District Court that there was a hoarding of the criminal investigation. There was no specific finding using the word SWORDWAR. The District Court's claim language was delayed. But I'm focusing on I have a language here, which says, they're by delaying the SEC's detection of the fraud. That's correct, Lord

. It's moving on to actions that cause the SEC to possess it and request the documents to go with the court of law, and it's not evidence to the District Court of the lie, and it's funny. I think this court will lie it on the fact that they did not come over the documents for a lengthy period of time. Should we go with the argument, is that likely to throw this different than likely to impede or interfere with it? That is a different test, and we're familiar with those in all sorts of ways. I mean, other statutes, but the one thing the investigation means, there will be no investigation. It's likely to stop the investigation. I think maybe I'm reading too much into the court. I would say that it's about a semantic issue between four and three. That's an unusual word to use. I mean, it is... It's in the statute of the law. It's in the statute. The weed. That's why it's important to us. Right, and all the changes are future for her. It is, in fact, even the District Court's written opinions that the investigation was going to be, but in effect, what we shown was that it was... And the reason it was sorted is that they had gone there on day and walk, and gotten a record that they learned that the investors pull the saying, they have more money than the accounts that they have. In this case, we went over on day two. He would be shut down in that fashion, because it delayed, and they then go to other places, they were through it. And what is not a crime, is not an obstructed crime to steal. Or really, that was his intention. This part of his intention, the other intention, maybe, has not been seen in a way that's not set both for it. I'll sit there until it happens. But we believe that these, incessant fair, eternal documents, the handing over partial documents, they're claiming that they're going to be there on the arm or they're not, which, forcibly, is to see it expand more time, going through the record of the other places, it is what's sorted their investigation, and then directly out. Now, I say it didn't work on the standing there, but technically, we weren't having a check in this discussion. But we think you'd have a finding by the District Court that there was a hoarding of the criminal investigation. There was no specific finding using the word SWORDWAR. The District Court's claim language was delayed. But I'm focusing on I have a language here, which says, they're by delaying the SEC's detection of the fraud. That's correct, Lord. Is there words that's in the District Court's opinion, which say that it delayed the criminal trial? No. So it's all related to the SEC's detection of the fraud. And you would recognize that the regulation of the guideline requires there to be a flooding of the criminal investigation, right? No, no. Does that mean that it's a flooding of the criminal investigation? Why don't you bring the first line? I got to take that back lightly to forward the criminal investigation. I'm focusing on the criminal, the first thing on the lack of it. And also, there's no finding by the District Court on that. There's no finding in this District Court on the fact of the criminal investigation at all. No, you're not. You didn't reach it. There was no criminal investigation during the time period of the SEC's detection. I guess I'm not communicating. I don't, don't you have to prove that this conduct, this obstructive conduct was likely to forward the criminal investigation. Yes. It's difficult to say exactly what the lack of it. I'm just saying that, but that's for you to prove. You can't say that. I'm not going to deny it since I was a child. We totally agree with some, you know. But I don't, I'll give you an echo. I just have no idea what the word means in the book. Well, it means a lot more to get a dip to speak once more. I'm not going to deny it. I'm not going to deny what I would say, this is that. I believe in listening to what your obstetrician says, and what your evidence is, I'm finding that the SEC investigation was through it. Now, we didn't go to the next step and say, and that means we were left with the criminal case too. We didn't do that. But as a temporal matter all of it, because someone is, it seems we've been different. And therefore that will be a thorium. It would have been quicker when I think about it. You have had less opportunity to make more money. Exactly. And I think exactly what we're saying. Then we come to the actual facts of the case

. Is there words that's in the District Court's opinion, which say that it delayed the criminal trial? No. So it's all related to the SEC's detection of the fraud. And you would recognize that the regulation of the guideline requires there to be a flooding of the criminal investigation, right? No, no. Does that mean that it's a flooding of the criminal investigation? Why don't you bring the first line? I got to take that back lightly to forward the criminal investigation. I'm focusing on the criminal, the first thing on the lack of it. And also, there's no finding by the District Court on that. There's no finding in this District Court on the fact of the criminal investigation at all. No, you're not. You didn't reach it. There was no criminal investigation during the time period of the SEC's detection. I guess I'm not communicating. I don't, don't you have to prove that this conduct, this obstructive conduct was likely to forward the criminal investigation. Yes. It's difficult to say exactly what the lack of it. I'm just saying that, but that's for you to prove. You can't say that. I'm not going to deny it since I was a child. We totally agree with some, you know. But I don't, I'll give you an echo. I just have no idea what the word means in the book. Well, it means a lot more to get a dip to speak once more. I'm not going to deny it. I'm not going to deny what I would say, this is that. I believe in listening to what your obstetrician says, and what your evidence is, I'm finding that the SEC investigation was through it. Now, we didn't go to the next step and say, and that means we were left with the criminal case too. We didn't do that. But as a temporal matter all of it, because someone is, it seems we've been different. And therefore that will be a thorium. It would have been quicker when I think about it. You have had less opportunity to make more money. Exactly. And I think exactly what we're saying. Then we come to the actual facts of the case. And so we have the SEC coming in late January and not being given the correct documents. And in the middle of April, he tells everything. So we have what, three months? Yes, you are. Yeah, after the complaint was served, and after the search was executed, and then he came in and said, I think we've discussed it fairly thoroughly. I believe that under circle safety here, it's not necessary to judge sanctions, to actively say, I believe it's also through the criminal case. I could get implicit as a drug worker, a little too before, that the SEC was the only, and in the moral course of events, when we actually see the drug aid, the federal government criminal was the only. I mean, if it's all these cases in John, actions before, I have asked all the SEC investigations and faculty court that clearly is a implicit drug worker and that's the primary point, upon the little big representation loss. That is the fact that he's just in work, and the reason he put on the evidence is what will stone in the end, the issue is actually the end time. I'll open to a little bit, and that was part of the issue, because it's a pretty young thing. Since the event that is now a net event, and does not require actually a structure of the criminal matter, all those activities are over the cat. Yeah. Back it off. That's a huge thing. There are four years on the guidelines, and it seems like a lot to leave to, but hearing from the record, and implicit, and probably this did, it had some impact, or some effect, or something like, that's not really what we want to be using here, as the basis for upholding this guideline, really, when it's perfectly clear that what happened with the bill was the government and the district court, and they both misunderstood what had to be obstructed, and what had to be obstructed was the criminal investigation, so government, knocking scenes on people, but for the sifferously denied the law, everything was focused on the SEC's examination. Now, there was a question mark reservation. I will point the court to 1-7 and 1-8, the UNDX. Jenkins decided throughout the, that has to do with objections to the PSR, then at the sentence in hearing, it's in the blue booth, but I'll just say it's 3-1-3-4-3-8-9. Again, reference to the wasn't the impact here on the criminal case, you're honor. So, I would readily admit that we, other organizations, were made, we had a person who was on the P, and this was not the only argument that was made available, but certainly was made available. And it's the government's burden, but obviously here, all the movements, and there is no record. The only thing that everyone can now say as well, sort of get it to us, because it seems like, we can all think that this was probably the way it is some way. The criminal case began the day the law didn't contrast. That's what we know from the record, but the government don't make a record. And now, there's stuck on a appeal, but the thing is understood in the law, but that's not a basis to hold a case in the criminal case. And with respect to the first issue in the honors, we're pulling down Judge Walker's truck, from our initial discussion about what's different here is that Mr. Hill and the jig was up. And what I want to suggest is that that can't really be a basis for distinguishing between all of the other people, the statements, the omissions, everything else that happened over these 10 years, and what happened in January 2009, because in essence, it's arbitrary. What that means is during the regulators complies this animation that how does the finally turn out a fraud, then you're going to be slapped with a plus two. That doesn't make a lot of sense. I would suggest that if the day we turn over the Fed, the first day we fail the turn over the documents, whoever the compliance examiner was called the enforcement division at the SEC and said, this case does smell right. This guy is not turning over documents. I'm hearing rumors blah, blah, blah. I think you're going to have a criminal investigation and then they open a criminal investigation

. And so we have the SEC coming in late January and not being given the correct documents. And in the middle of April, he tells everything. So we have what, three months? Yes, you are. Yeah, after the complaint was served, and after the search was executed, and then he came in and said, I think we've discussed it fairly thoroughly. I believe that under circle safety here, it's not necessary to judge sanctions, to actively say, I believe it's also through the criminal case. I could get implicit as a drug worker, a little too before, that the SEC was the only, and in the moral course of events, when we actually see the drug aid, the federal government criminal was the only. I mean, if it's all these cases in John, actions before, I have asked all the SEC investigations and faculty court that clearly is a implicit drug worker and that's the primary point, upon the little big representation loss. That is the fact that he's just in work, and the reason he put on the evidence is what will stone in the end, the issue is actually the end time. I'll open to a little bit, and that was part of the issue, because it's a pretty young thing. Since the event that is now a net event, and does not require actually a structure of the criminal matter, all those activities are over the cat. Yeah. Back it off. That's a huge thing. There are four years on the guidelines, and it seems like a lot to leave to, but hearing from the record, and implicit, and probably this did, it had some impact, or some effect, or something like, that's not really what we want to be using here, as the basis for upholding this guideline, really, when it's perfectly clear that what happened with the bill was the government and the district court, and they both misunderstood what had to be obstructed, and what had to be obstructed was the criminal investigation, so government, knocking scenes on people, but for the sifferously denied the law, everything was focused on the SEC's examination. Now, there was a question mark reservation. I will point the court to 1-7 and 1-8, the UNDX. Jenkins decided throughout the, that has to do with objections to the PSR, then at the sentence in hearing, it's in the blue booth, but I'll just say it's 3-1-3-4-3-8-9. Again, reference to the wasn't the impact here on the criminal case, you're honor. So, I would readily admit that we, other organizations, were made, we had a person who was on the P, and this was not the only argument that was made available, but certainly was made available. And it's the government's burden, but obviously here, all the movements, and there is no record. The only thing that everyone can now say as well, sort of get it to us, because it seems like, we can all think that this was probably the way it is some way. The criminal case began the day the law didn't contrast. That's what we know from the record, but the government don't make a record. And now, there's stuck on a appeal, but the thing is understood in the law, but that's not a basis to hold a case in the criminal case. And with respect to the first issue in the honors, we're pulling down Judge Walker's truck, from our initial discussion about what's different here is that Mr. Hill and the jig was up. And what I want to suggest is that that can't really be a basis for distinguishing between all of the other people, the statements, the omissions, everything else that happened over these 10 years, and what happened in January 2009, because in essence, it's arbitrary. What that means is during the regulators complies this animation that how does the finally turn out a fraud, then you're going to be slapped with a plus two. That doesn't make a lot of sense. I would suggest that if the day we turn over the Fed, the first day we fail the turn over the documents, whoever the compliance examiner was called the enforcement division at the SEC and said, this case does smell right. This guy is not turning over documents. I'm hearing rumors blah, blah, blah. I think you're going to have a criminal investigation and then they open a criminal investigation. And he still refuses to turn over the documents at that point. Would that be different in this case? When you say open is a criminal investigation, the SEC puts up a full enforcement investigation. I'm sorry, several enforcement investigation. Yeah, it would be an official investigation. That's true. Yeah, it didn't happen here, but it's a different case. That's the difference for whatever is an official investigation. It doesn't have anything to do with the impact and everything else I understand. But, and I would suggest around it, it doesn't get the government to the goal line. But it isn't, it would be an interior difference. Because then we are more squarely under the allocation which wants to be for an official investigation. So, I would suggest you're not, I'm sorry. No, I just can't hear from the point of what this examination is. I was looking at the language in 173-174, the appendix, which is cross-examination by one of your colleagues. And it does, it does say it's a cross-examination, but it doesn't sound like a criminal, you know, like there's criminal activity involved. You don't know what that means. Right. We don't know anything about it. It sounds like a regular investigation. Well, they don't fax me now. Or, first of all, a cross-examination. I think it has multiple different videos. The same as it does in a period of time. So, there's two different ways. We've talked about the various, that they have a group brief. And they talk about this, there's a very straightforward one in this context, and that's not even, and it's the enforcement division. In fact, there's two different stashives. The Dessancy, the Precincts, that are two or more two to one in B. So, there's two worlds here. Now, one of the, there's some sort of, this cross-examination, I don't know what it means, it certainly is a basis to, so it's a key thing, it's a relationship. It, it perhaps is a regard. But I want to say, how have you do it? It says, we do it on, on a one-point basis. Like you said, you didn't know the English thing, but there are two times before, during the period

. I would like to suggest you're wrong, but the one part wrong here is not our chair. And that's because I actually think there is a meaningful culpable of the distinction between someone getting the one hand, and they're not to say anything about the faxalistic, or the actual false-induced documents, there's no frame. This is a significant, quite tight level of structural justice, but there is a culpable distinction to be made, to be made with still-long rules, messing around with the individual, which is a lot of the thing, where you can, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, an