the government brought the civil forfeiture case in california central district but the property is not present in california was not purchased in california the complaint does not allege that the property owners ever set foot in california  conducting any business in california but alleged acts that the government says gave rise to forfeiture of all took place overseas not in california his case has nothing to do of california did not do that for all the money that went cases that are not owners with more in the nature of creditors they same situation of course arises in the bankruptcy court sell the due process only protects the rights of the property owner implicitly overruled shaver because the clear implication is that in ram jurisdiction is still a thing and it wasn't necessary to have a a claim against the the state a situation where the bankruptcy court always has jurisdiction over the rest because it has jurisdiction over the owner of arrests that you can only nishi at the bankruptcy case where they want to reside where he's he is it h s is there any case that you can point to that has interpreted schafer the way you say it should be interpreted that there specifically in a forfeiture action have to be minimum contacts with someone who claims to be the honor  well actually your honour's this circuit has in two instances the ten thousand dollars case and twenty nine thousand nine hundred and fifty nine dollars case both of which were civil for pictures both cases paid homage to shaffer and rights we're talking about are rights of defendant and the defendant did not raise what was did not make this argument where by waving it and waiver aside i don't believe conceptually that the government is in a position to vindicate that right but w center sting the government there as as you know a judge it could actually was arguing say for so the reason you did not reach shaper was because we knew procedural posture but then so your question here are yes and do instances you have f proceedings and i understood the government to echo the it's a thing i'm not sure there's there's a chingy for that supports this like to hear what you have to say as well when you're on a not only there's not much in savings supports the government's position but there is actually a perfectly clear language in footnote seventeen in particular where the court says several things words says that when we use the word in ram we're talking about both in most holdings so schaefer is one hundred percent for us the government misconstrues who could and there's really very little that that we should say about that i just wanted mean they're free reasons why we prevail st of all since the rest is not a new addiction the only basis for the government's position in venue is for two hundred and fifty five dollars b the teaching of a circuit is that there has to be a proximate cause jurisdiction that took place in the central district of california as we point out in footnote fourteen to a brief yesterday let me ask you about this and no one has cited us neither you nor the government nor the district court so transferred to the red granite capital account out of los angeles back why doesn't that count although again no one has no one has cited that you're on a yes but with regard to the red capital and the funding of the movies that doesn't appear to me to be irrelevant to the scheme so why is it that  sending the money to the right capital los angeles account during the goods good star phase of the scheme is irrelevant your honor we feel and argue that the good star please important joshua son of the united states to address personal jurisdiction st the personal jurisdiction outcome of this case is controlled by hood in hood the supreme court said that when you are dealing adjudicating a true interim case you only discharge claims without in persona of jurisdiction over the state over the state so the the other opposing counsel says well but there is no due process right that the state or i'm contacts or the like of that seems to be correct you don't disagree with that right i don't disagree with that but what i do what the key point is that the question was the question posed to supreme court was does the th amendment prohibit the bankruptcy court from exercising jurisdiction over the case let me just ask you this assuming i don't think that would overrule schaefer is at the end of your case or do you have another argument no i would agree with your honor that hood does not overrule schafer opposing counsel a polling counsel said that schaefer says it assertions of jurisdiction requirement on contact what who it says is when you are dealing with an interim case you don't need to assert jurisdiction over rd parties with an interest in the rest so you never get to the schaefer question of what would be required if you did need to assert your stiction because you don't need to assert jurisdiction in the st place so in that respect shaffer in hood are entirely consistent with understand you i guess require his contacts per international issues so how am i misunderstanding that because it dealt with assertions of jurisdiction i would say for there was no dispute you needed to assert jurisdiction over the defense in the case of the officers and directors of gr it talks about jurisdiction over the defendant the word defendant happens a couple over and over and over again in shafer so even if you were to read it as broadly as possible for an enron case you would need to search your stiction according to the broadest reading of schaefer over the has the rights not the property so that's why they say because it's the person who has the interest we think they have jurisdiction over the person because it's the person who is being held in the courts the person who  itself over you has never challenged or excuse me he has never properly challenge jurisdiction over the pallet here shares he of course tried to belatedly in his reply brief below the district court held it was waived he hasn't challenge that waiver holding so as a matter of law person you would say that's that's a fair reading of schaefer if you have jurisdiction over the property in a true in iran case then certainly that's what hood said and i believe you think that's a fair do not need to assert jurisdiction over over the owner of the property over people than interest in the property and that's why the th amendment question wasn't didn't need to be addressed in fact justice scalia in his dissent in hood sort of  contacts with the owner of the rests in fact there was no discussion of whether minimal contact with the rest itself in a constitutional sense what allowed for in rem jurisdiction was satisfying section one thousand three hundred and fifty five dollars so certainly as a matter of panel precedent we believe that case is controlling even if hood or otherwise not controlling which it is if you're i could move to the venue questions i know my time is short and less or further questions on pers on venue it's important to know that this court is not writing on a blank slate the cases have a universally held unanimously held that when a defendant rescues proceeds of a conspiracy venue is proper in any district where any act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place and i think one case of the many cases we string cited is worthy of lingering on just a moment and that is again one million six hundred and seventy thousand because the facts of one set point sixty seven million are really dispositive in that case you had a and this court held that venue was proper india case was properly brought in the northern district of california and it says why it's not an idea it says quote the government's officially demonstrated that hard talks marijuana smuggling enterprise which gave rise to the fo dollars wandered into the central district to purchase the lemma taj hotel to purchase other luxury real estate then in other later phases of the conspiracy there were other overt acts we discussed in our brief that there was a fraudulent email sent to be a side bank from los angeles which was really the key to unlocking one billion four hundred million dollars in stolen proceeds judge bennett i think referred to sending money to red granite that was as a as a matter of fact in media say that a little bit more sharply but it that's simply not plausible particularly on a motion to dismiss we allege that this was a waves of successive attacks on the one indeed the sovereign wealth fund using very similar methodology is sham joint venture a sham bank accounts funneling money into these bank accounts and then rating at you have the same actors but your position is even if that's right with regard to this race it doesn't matter  well it is it is critical that it is a single there is a single conspiracy we our position is that act fruits of a conspiracy are properly venue it where ever any act in furtherance of the conspiracy takes place now implicit in that position is the fact that this is the same conspiracy but there is copious evidence from the overlapping methodology as to the overlapping people to the fact that some of the money in later phases was used to cover up shortfall in the earlier phases it fifty three see the exact same language and what do they hold they hold that the relation back statutes are triggered as soon as the st act of the conspiracy of hers so you don't look to see whether there is a direct tracing there's no further analysis required as soon as a conspiracy starts the relation back is triggered and title best in the government so therefore giving rise to the forfeiture in one thousand three hundred and fifty five b should also have the same rule as soon a ny acts giving rise to the forfeiture be any action for those of the conspiracy give rise to the forfeiture because that's the only way you can harmonize the same language across the multiple statutes finally on or my final few seconds look to prosecutions of criminal conspiracies they can be venue for ever any act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place even it was even not in which conspirator committed the act so civil forfeiture proceeds of a criminal conspiracy should also be allowed to be venue where ever any act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place it makes zero sense to have a more restrictive rule for civil forfeiture proceeds of a conspiracy then you have for prosecutions creditors are not entitled to same rights and the state and the de was a creditor he was not an owner i would also like to point out that the absurd consequences under the government's reading of the law if you have where refs due process right apply entirely again there's nothing constitutionally unique about civil forfeiture so you would not be entitled to notice because due process is a lot more an established as many majors diction this the criminal conspiracy government entirely by different jurisdiction rules because of a th amendment etc etc let me also point out that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction is utterly rejected those dance and