if a jury could have found that it was official to establish the fourth that ability of the evidence we absolutely totally don't disagree with that there is no question that a reasonable trier of fact quote of that that that's not the issue though the issue in fifty four bottles a lot of bottles there are very tiny little bottles and in fact people drink them that you know i mean these guys drink it for the germans what they did and the california it only made it legal two months earlier but the point is and i've been here drug enforcement agent and look they're claiming this guy's a drug you are but there were no drug ledgers there were no pale sheets there was no repackaging material there were no weapons to protect the drug supply the government didn't even claim that there was a positive thing i don't work to any of the money and he said look you look at all those factors and that's probably indicative of a less likelihood that this is drugs procedures and indeed i was thinking as i was driving up here last night if you look at the eight factors that the jury doesn't have a right to consider that the only difference that's why i left out was number one in this case the boulder house made in the mission that he had sold marijuana in the past and there's a factual dispute about that the government says he said two years ago he says i haven't done it since jury the government's burden in this case is the court has instructed you is to prove by preponderance of the evidence that this is not just illegal money but this drug crossed and they have not carried their burden they haven't brought in a single informant th explanation is that they can't prove it's drug related and that's takes us to the very buy that do i think the jury would buy that when they get it when we get to the second argument i think that they mail it doesn't matter whether i think they will or they won't i think that they have a right to make that  and distribution of methamphetamine what the agents affidavit lacks however is the significant connection between the detail narcotics activity and particular assets targeted by the government for her to proceed that's followed by two two two four record of drug transactions i have a minute and a half left and so i'd like to reserve that if i co record and in this case what the declarant mr levine testified to was that it was possible that the defendant assets were tied to prostitution larceny a whole bunch of other crimes that he speculates about there is no evidence in the are going to the proverbial bouillabaisse what are you left with this case essentially you're left with a large sum of money and a few other facts that are not uniquely pointed to drug trafficking but if that is slow then i would argue that the that my opponent just applied spidered specifically the four hundred five thousand taste and the twenty two do rosie actually support the government's view because if all you have a large sum of cash then the declarant tend not to say that that again there is no evidence in the record about the characteristics of the various drugs g p l as opposed to marijuana that is absolutely the case whosever as well the burden with respect to each and every fact would be the government's burd want to make sure i make clear there is no requirement we've cited case for the government to tie assets to specific drug transactions there is no requirement that the government show that the speed aspects of value add are about the same amount as  seized drugs but why wouldn't there pre i mean if if if he's being charged with drug trafficking and you're a lying on the modern drugs found by wouldn't that be a very significant factor it is an important factor but recall the goods that the items were subject to for which are not only if they represent traceable proceeds of drug trafficking but also what the amounts of items found in it suggest that the items were intended to be talking about trafficking to the extent the claim that could show that this is the amount of drugs in question and he was only having the drugs for personal use then there then i suppose he could try and take the position that there is no connection between or no link between the two items but list has recalled that and with respect to a number of cases where there are no drugs found in all and specifically i would ask the court to take a look at three sets of the cases including the case that was cited by the district court in its decision and that is us versus three hundred twenty one thousand four hundred seventy dollars where there were five grams of cocaine strong probative evidence and strong circumstantial evidence of the links fission to satisfy the negative the fastest that is how we tie the four to be a call to drug trafficking we cannot specifically say that there was a specific transaction whereby the claimant paying  the government responded to the claimants motion to dismiss for failure to state acquired in response to the complaint and as the court knows in making that determination the district court was required to assume the truth of the fact the government alleged and  could remain silent i would argue that claim it cannot remain just because as shown by the earlier decision if you combine these facts together and stir them together under the aggregate of the facts test they are enough to claim it cannot remain silent and that is why i believe the course side of the national union case and without getting in the fast again of that case but you have to offer some facts under federal rule of civil procedure fifty six specific factual in their tribal issue material takes every fact in isolation of so this fact in isolation is insufficient to prove the link he doesn't deal with the drugs in the drug paraphernalia and he doesn't deny the drugs were commercial quantities he just as every fact by itself is not unique to drug uniquely linked to a particular crime the government does not have to show and and indicate that all other possible illicit activity is not tied to the defendant assets all the government has to i read the declaration is essentially saying all right there's no way to explain where this money came from in a lawful fashion but it could have been any one of a number of unlawful activities and he ticked off gambling loan sharking i think there were a prosecution there couple of it was a nice laundry list of bad things somebody can do and you're right that just because it was a bad activity doesn't mean the government has the right to latch on to the proce although it does make a very appealing jury argument and we're faced here with an issue of is it possible that a reasonable fact finder the jury would come out with a different result when you have here at least some evidence that the claimant was l to illegal substances in the form of possession potentially for personal use in the form of admission on his part of its own drug usage admission on his part of drug dealing at some point in the past albeit two years or nine years distant had apparently no indication of actual involvement in gambling or prostitution or long sharking or the other things now i find it difficult to believe a jury's going to say reach out of the blue well even though all the indications here  is he's involved in this illegal substance we think he's really running a prostitution ring on the side so we're not going to let the government like kind of this money i mean that just doesn't seem very plausible to me well the problem is and i've run into this argument for twenty years if we had a special quantity or i think versus their statement that it was two years ago everything else you've heard is indicative that there's some personal conduct but the judge is the destruction you that you must find that it was drug trafficking what evidence is there well you know you here in the kind of things you find with people running the numbers racket you don't find here that some three of you have a money counting machine you do have a lot of currency you have currency him you have the i think consistent statements i mean what you're really saying is for some time some cases are easier to drive in to get some rejection and this strikes me as a potential candidate for it after it's irrelevant where we are now but i still got to say it's hard for me to imagine a jury coming up with a different result and it's some level that's really the test is it possible that a reasonable fact finder would get a different result when there's nothing at all to suggest that the other illegal activity actually went on and could be a source of the probe i think the answer your question is and i will repeat of for just one more time is the fact that in the governments that we didn't come three was compiled here that's other stuff some other brief points i wanted to make number that's the government i think in the in the trial that most of it or take two to three days to try this case next as to the drugs that were found the marijuana was one about commercial of the government's not required surely commercial quantities of drugs now they're not that they're trying to argue that the money that this individual has that is housed and his assets were purchased with drug proceeds it would be helpful if they had some evidence of and you have his history of drug violations a reasonable person would believe that such illegal activity was in fact the exchange of a controlled substance that's a different court not heroin holding the government established probable cause that is a far different standard than what we face here today when we have a standard of preponderance of the evidence and the question of whether the jury was permitted or should have been permitted to draw the other inference from the other the absence of evidence of drug trafficking as ultimately lose this case the trial hopefully that we will have the opportunity to see that result someday in the future but this is the trier of fact was entitled under the law to make that decision that matter of