property before they even filed suit the present report identified them to the government that the title was not a simple as they reported in the complaint it reported the fact that the title represented a few simple interest any property on by my wife and myself when the fact they were fully aware of all by either party disposed to the case that it was clear that under this case on this record you lose and we want to give you the opportunity to tell us why this case which was not cited by either party why this case should not govern this case the outcome of your appeal and then i understand your process a and we only did this in order to give you an opportunity because it hadn't been raised before so why why should we not just apply this case and conclude that you you lose on your appeal it's a matter of what the government knew about  any standing is based on the idea that my brother lacked infrasonic jurisdiction in the property was taken without him being afforded the opportunity any opportunity to defend his property before the court you know provides me with standing before the court ok thank you think i think we did perhaps not third that should be i have but we did at least attempt to raise that as one of our arguments and i believe that it is controlling especially because there there in addition to the normal standing requirements for forfeiture there is a statutory standing requirement of the island the proper procedures to become a party and that was never done ok my whereabouts at all times during the entire notice period and under the lane robinson and the men in that border regions and among all other cases the government was conses constitutionally required to use their this and its notice attempts instead many addresses were used but not where i was to be found which the government told we knew there was a sixteen period in which to deviate from to notice from beginning until the end during that time i was to be found in jail for ten of those weeks for six of those weeks i was on a something called six third party custody veil condition known in alaska that the tightest one that you could find was that it was required to be with someone twenty four hours a day within the six out of court appointed attorneys the government knew where i was  opinion requires reversal because of its finding that while the e p a failed to follow constitutional notice practices in most of the attempts nonetheless the combined efforts achieved somehow constitutionality theft or its intent but the decision finds fault with nearly every notice when sent individually the court finds variously those sent to an s r box number sixteen of them fifteen were returned because the address was ten years out of date they're automatically trained by the post office three groups you want us to go my home which had been seen the owners excluded the doors l and the address of my business the court also found great fault with that because the marshals controlled the property as found by the court the physical mailbox and furthermore the court also found that the change of address order interfered with meal delivery to myself and my wife and interfered with the da's a tempest in of the by me that's a find but  also found that that address was sufficient because by criminal the criminal defense attorney called the da and said don't send me any notices and he gave them the twenty one sixty s to go home address unbeknown to him or me or anyone but the marshals they controlled my mail utterly at that stage we didn't receive any mail after they'd put a change of address or we didn't have a chance of receiving their mail from the government when the government interfered with every attempt at mail delivery to me during the entire notice my correct in understanding the government changed the changes change of address order from a rural mail box to a post office box they hired you would never use that particular bo never know i had absolutely no access to it it was restricted i didn't know about this until nineteen ninety nine so it may have reserved some of my time yes i believe there were while all this answer that directly and brought back to a premise for the whole thing with directly there was evidence in the trial that there were two keys one was held by the marshals greenhouse business at that location at the astrodome location and he knew no karen brown in connection with this with this key or any other way so i need to step back well quote we did not receive any mail during the notice period he contended and he stood here today that after the marshal put in this change of address you noticed that all the mail came from there is a if i'm not familiar with the property which clip is but it's my understanding from the record that there is a piece property of the astrodome road of the green house and that somewhere near there is a rural route post office just a post office box with a mailbox that's connected to that that's with other pieces with other mailboxes and if that was their address that's where they received their mail for years and years and he said here today that after the marshals put in their change would press for business they didn't get any more mail there that all went to the post office box and therefore it must be because karen brown got this that karen brown must be a government employee that is not consistent with the record the court it's very clear mail that i think it's called that half the i have not told me but there's a business name they directed that mail to the post office box so they can get the money to the government and bills and whatever from the business some of the personal mail wound up in the post office box and also there was some of the business mail wound up in the mailbox but it's but there it's certainly incorrect to say that they didn't get an e mail at the at the roadside location in fact the only question is how much there was some testimony from mr  wasn't just somehow totally a marshall's operation i would like to court to look at the records at volume one pages ninety three to ninety nine be the correct name was at the post office signing for a certified mail receipt that she had signed certified mail that had been sent to her at the at the astrodome address certainly she'd gotten her but as we say we don't know knows for sure exactly how the karen brown signatures got on there but it certainly is not limited to a work once we sent it to and and then there was the rest of eternity gave us which was the long time healing dress but this is not a case where he was incarcerated the whole time and we just he says well we knew where he was after that he had he was on the at around that time the record shows he was giving his address out to people to send things to at the astrodome addressed he was in some sort probably if they found if they had found out about his study then it was disturbing he was back in the jail for a alleged violation of his pretrial release by february so he was back again for three weeks for sure and so to say that day we knew where he was at all times and we and the government sort of ignoring that that's it doesn't really capture the gist of what happened in the situation i that i have a question we understand your point if you send out registered mail you get nothing back how does that indicate that you've had reasonable service and you want to assume he got it because the letter didn't come back then you have the next one that says there's no receptacles that's a mail and it comes back and then you have the nother when no address such person here comes back now along that line i suppose you're going to argue that that that's good service to the notice but do you argue that any one of those just efficient can stand regular mail and that would be sufficient did you didn't get the government do that at all when when there was something last then an indication by a return receipt that you sent regular mail the same thing the government to them you know and there was no real claim here that in some cases people said well certified mail is not as good because of one reason or another but that was never a claim here  that's it's my understanding from supreme court cases that they don't prescribe certain things will be when they find it inadequate they don't say well you should spend it regular mail what they say is you should try to do something else that makes sense and i think that's what the posting it on the house is one solution obviously that's not a solution for personal property where the people are there i mean every solution every case has it's a different context and that's what the supreme court has held that they have you have to look at it and they can do that do what a person would do if you really wanted to get noticed here well once she's made multiple attempts and including an attempt at the  a long time mailing address which the attorney said hey this is the one to use what happens if we find any of these this notice was insufficient do you have to go around serve notice and start over again i think there might be a far too starting at this late date but i'm i'm not sure that that it would not because they were just the ministr if the receipt isn't if the post office doesn't do what it was was supposed to do keep the item them post a little notice on the door about you know they came out or they came to deliver a certified layoff letter you have to go to the post office and pick it up rather all of the matter is just a matter of this little steep part not making its way back it's history anything in the record that shows the postal regulations or how they deal with certified think i have my own experience with it but was there any evidence that the government put in as to what happens to sort of five mail worth of processed procedures are was there anything in the record on that there was testimony from postal employees at the post office as to what the general policies were for delivering sort of fight mail but that doesn't doesn't mean life for example of your requiring id for example of the person or something something that addressed some connection but with the caviar that or maybe they knew the person or but there was nothing in the record to show why something would not come back at all from the post office yes from the post office from there you know there would be no official reason why the standard record there would be no official reason for it not to that the receipt card could have gotten lost it could have gotten lost the receipt for it could have been lost in the incoming mail to have been lost and you know from that you can't tell where the point i a little later she said she received a little bit of mail and it and a notice from the post office saying that all mail had been forwarded from the post office that rural mail box to a new mail box marshals that's pretty clear on her testimony my testimony is i never got in like many mail there and i didn't have a single thing and testimony further went on to say late in the spring this is well after that he ate you know this exercise and she marshall's put a change of address order in i guess then it stopped and then she received the last thing really she got from the mailbox was a change of address order informing that mailbox