three of the subclasses that were proposed three of the ten foot paths of the not hind numerosity as to the other seven and the court made a mistake in that the court said that the although there were a vast number of the people in each of those subclasses of a proposed the court said that the numbers were not to distinguish between cash cost bonds that were submitted and surety bond for submitted and where the court made a mistake was the but it's been specified the return of farms and you don't return a surety bond to someone when you when you submit a cash bond and the bond is the case is over the cas return of the bond without the scorching interest will surety bonds are not deposited in the government's account like cash bonds so there's not a question of returning interest on a surety mine anyway also if you look at the interest or response  cash what they did not object to in those respects rocked her responses as far as not understanding the question there was no objection based on ambiguity and in fact the complaint specifically talks about about surety bonds and this type of setting and i thought all of these bombs so i think the the red herring that was brought up during oral argument about surety bond and i actually was in a reply also read by the government it is it's these were actually were all three of these sub class members represented some classes each were requesting either return of interest or return of expenses that dr them properly the same legal theory throughout the case and whether the person had one had an administrative claim or one had a judicial case the fact remains that in each case we're asking interest wasn't returned and they fit in that class whether they got there or cases their case was in the ministry of level or the judicial levels irrelevant they fit into the category of each of those and under that legal or remedial theory that it's a to have some confusion as to the broader the breadth of the class and asked that we make them more specific and identifying and actually it was part of the issues that were raised about the possible answers we broke it up so  more than one there are three overall clarity ok so you need a class representative of each of those three yes there is one one class representative that represents represents three subclasses one represents three four classes and the third represents four subfile so they all represent those individual classes they may not have substantially identical circumstances like the timing of the seizure or the the amount of interest that could be returned or but that's those those are relevant to the certification issue which is do they have the same legal or remedial serious offense and they do and each one of those three overall  i don't think it's necessary in this case but if we had to search out and find seven or six or seven other people i don't think we're for clothes from that it's if it was a romance for that purpose i don't forget i don't think that's necessary because i think these three and that's where the court made a mistake the court said well these people who are asking to have their money returned that the government's holding are seeking a form of damages well that was that conclusion by the court was totally inconsistent with the  know how the court jumps from saying it's equitable relief if you're but suddenly now they're asking for a form of damages and it didn't make sense so i think the court made a mistake there and and making life inclusion that those two rules twenty three class action would be the superior method in this case individual action because the court did not address the fact that the class definition subclass definitions that were presented to the court not have to do this but a special master or the parties would just look at the file and see is there a settlement agreement in the file and if it is then and then those people are excluded from the class if there's no settlement agreement then we move on and out of the courts the fifa question there is there will have data showing the date of seizure for example the date of deposit of a cost for example and specifying the amount of costs that were taken out of the fall right in each individual file so the very simple process in the u s marshal in the u s customs service does this all the time in determining what cost to return to someone or what amount of interest to pay to someone under the two hundred seventy seven were taken without looking at the files and we can't tell whether these represent hospitals return but here's a universe of figures from which he could potentially be the case that these mines were improperly deducted from persist throughout that process because i suppose that it's possible for a bride notice to be sent out to everybody in the united states of america or everybody you know sort of cost one and then ask them didn't carefully review what happened in the district court it carefully reviewed for a long time for four years several motions there was a certification motion that was made i don't think anyone would question how careful her tomorrow it's true and i think mr holden argued this point that the court said well in so some sense they're actually looking for equitable discords and then run the money and i think that follows from the two hundred seventy seven thousand dollar agreement that you can go to it really depends on each a usa who might be heading in that case if the result is that there's a resolution and there's going to be no court filing what's the trouble of what's need for the other claims that it might have he or she might have for interest or cost beyond adoption so there again there are varied of individualized issues that the court and then on finding that predominates did not prevail in this case i'd like to reserve whatever balance well i'm sorry i'd like to move very quickly on to the government's process appeal issues labor all the issues that have been raised by the governments feel i would like to partial summary judgment in favor of now in the bronx case that was a complete judgment and so now and then you know what somebody's going to have to go forward and determine what were the proper charges of the plaintiffs before judgment was answered because they obviously drafted a judgment that set a proper deductions and then didn't pursue what appropriate defections would be it would still be litigated after that judgment is entered under a rule sixty b they have a full year property wrongfully one sex case is extended beyond that i think the court is really getting into the quagmire of whether it's violating the no interest rule and there's no authority for brown to argue that she's  cases if a court looks at the government's brief specifically the sub sub class definitions vary in very much detail and specifically exclude a lot of these potential problems have at that point because the subclass definition is specifically specifically identified as a class that someone who had all of their money returned by the government it is government declined the case or cancelled the proceedings or determined that they had to give all the money back for some reason and return on the money but failed to return the interest without money and we're not talking about settlement we're part of the money was returned in exchange for government getting to keep the rest we're talking about existed but they're included in that and those people would definitely go and there's no question about it if they qualified all the way through but were a whole harmless agreeing that was fine we presented evidence before the court in the court and ask the courts  a final judgment said that the car forfeited the bond has to be returned less appropriate expenses and that's all really set so the bond was not returned until four months later now the case is over  in the original case which is determining whether the car should be forfeited or not this is a whole new issue where the government's now holding on to someone from costco and they're taking out money that doesn't belong to them a whole different set of facts and now you're in the area of how do you collect against the government to give proper they're holding it's not something that the district court was ever was ever presented to the district court by the government and could have been presented to the district court because the court made a fall judgment said they don't return it you have to be the first judge makes that determination doesn't happen is not part of the collection action that you have to have a separate squash action to make them fit that the ring back so i  hundred seventy seven thousand cases not apply to interest to be paid in cost it does apply and applied the basic principle of interest follows principle and that that's what the case said if you look at the case carefully it specifically talks about the theory of interest following principle didn't matter where the property was wrongfully suits or not it's just that interest followed principle and cited a whole litany of cases that stood for that standard and that's what the standard t