and second of all -- so that's a rule of completeness, and

10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 H3vlgiu2 and second of all -- so that's a rule of completeness, and second of all, you were there and you heard it and therefore, it would go to your state of mind and not for the truth of the matter asserted. The next case is United States v. Dupree. That's another criminal case in this circuit, where a bank fraud defendant was the subject of a temporary restraining order issued to that defendant, okay? So, you know, he has a temporary restraining order, you can't take any money out of this bank unless you do X, Y, and Z. Well, he took the money out of the bank without doing X, Y, and Z, and when he came to trial in his criminal case, the government was allowed to introduce that restraining order because it was his restraining order, he knew about it, and it showed his willful intent to defraud as part of the bank fraud. So that's that case. Arista Records, LLC v. Lime Group, LLC was another case they rely on. Again, these are emails that are being talked about that were written by the defendant's employees and then the responses to those emails. So clearly the defendants LLC had corporate knowledge of those things. Screenshots of software programs, statements made by an agent of the defendant, those are all the things that we're talking about in that case, and so there's actual knowledge of the entity of those statements, which then can go for state of mind. There are two more cases. Crescenz v. Penguin Group, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011417