114 H3vlgiu2 ih and second of all -- so that's a rule of completeness, and 2 second of all, you were there and you heard it and therefore, 3 it would go to your state of mind and not for the truth of the 4 matter asserted. 5 The next case is United States v. Dupree. That's 6 another criminal case in this circuit, where a bank fraud 7 defendant was the subject of a temporary restraining order 8 issued to that defendant, okay? So, you know, he has a 9 temporary restraining order, you can't take any money out of 10 this bank unless you do X, Y, and Z. Well, he took the money apa: out of the bank without doing X, Y, and Z, and when he came to 12 trial in his criminal case, the government was allowed to 13 introduce that restraining order because it was his restraining 14 order, he knew about it, and it showed his willful intent to 15 defraud as part of the bank fraud. So that's that case. 16 Arista Records, LLC v. Lime Group, LLC was another de case they rely on. Again, these are emails that are being 18 talked about that were written by the defendant's employees and 19 then the responses to those emails. So clearly the defendants 20 LLC had corporate knowledge of those things. Screenshots of 21 software programs, statements made by an agent of the 22 defendant, those are all the things that we're talking about in 23 that case, and so there's actual knowledge of the entity of 24 those statements, which then can go for state of mind. 25 There are two more cases. Crescenz v. Penguin Group, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011417