the district court's opinion and i think that it does become clear where the district court made an error is in this case if we look at the opinion and so i think maybe the easiest thing to do is to just reference the opinion for the court if we look at the needs to look at because the ancillary proceeding which is what we're talking about in this case is really quite title action and the question is did the petitioner have superior title to the assets being forfeited at the time that the defendant committed the criminal activity which is it court specifically rejects that if we go to page eight of the court's opinion which is joint appendix page fifteen the court says the st full paragraph taken together the facts demonstrate that the other members of the company exercised some degree of dominion and control and were not mere nominees accordingly i find the petitioner has a staff established oh boy i'm a ship interest in the property in other words petitioners not a mere nominee of the defendant then petition then the nd question is when did petitioner acquire its ownership interest and the court says on page six the company and its ownership of the property preexisted defendant's criminal activity and that's in the c is not a mere nominee and once it's found that its ownership interest in the farm preexisted lucas is criminal activity it had defined the that under section eight defense criminal case then the question is if there's an issue you know it goes back to the court saying the government also says that there's some unclean hands stock going in here because they say that petitioners wife might have known what be what if that's the case that's where you file a civil forfeiture case that's the whole idea once you find that the property is owned not it is owned by somebody independent of the defendant and only that property before the make sure i understand your argument it seems very simplistic and i don't mean that as a pejorative as i understand your argument you're saying that diamond developers own this property before lucas's criminal behavior and i think the record indicates that diamond developers owned it in two thousand and four as early as two thousand and four and lucas did not submit the fraudulent mortgage application until two thousand and nine correct correct your honor all right so you're saying i'm developers on it before the criminal conduct and i'm developer's owns it now therefore under the language concern what about the government's argument which i take to be more an argument from equity not an argument from the language of the statute because we just went through the language a statute seems to support your  case but the government's point is now hold on a minute the only reason we're being thwarted here is because lucas is fraud  lucas and his cohorts to acquire the l l c and it might make an ass of the law to allow lucas and his cohorts to profit from that fraud what's your response to that your honor that the we need to follow the statute and what the statute says is if unless the statute has an exception that the courts have built in an exception to this that it's not  criminal case that's what it's allowed to do if it wants to forfeit other people's interest in the yellow sea and those interests are independent of the defendants and has to either charge them with the crime and forfeit it criminally to their case or government has here and in your argument boils down to they're taking a shortcut they're not doing it the right way absolutely not doing it the right way and the courts there's tremendous case law out there talking about how if you qualify under  fifty three and six a as a preexisting owner the court says we don't care if you knew what the defendant had a you know committed this crime misconduct that's separate and apart something you could bring up in a civil forfeiture case or you could if they knew it and they participated in it you can charge them with a crime what you can't do is you can't th that an independent parties ownership interest in somebody else's criminal case you can't forfeit the wife's interest in the l l c through the defendant's criminal case unless she really doesn't have an interest because it's all looked at as interest then we have a problem and the court found she has an independent interest in the l l c and the government talks about it maybe the court gets a little confused about not putting out there not trying to forfeit lucas's interest in the l l c they were trying to forfeit the elysees interest in a farm and that's the problem so they took the whole enchilada when they might be a title to take fifty percent of it in negotiating with the wife either she buys up the government's interest or they buy out hers that's typically how these are done if there's if if this is a home and the government tries to forfeit a defendant's interest in a home that's called one with the wife typically there's a negotiation one of them is going to keep the home and the other one is going to pay the other party but here they have tried to take all of her property or all of her interests in an l l c by trying to forfeit the property is the yellow se original owners of the l l c anything because it was underwater the original owners bought this to develop land that went south with the housing market they couldn't pay their mortgage what these guys did is they said we've got a plan that  will you know pay off the mortgage one day to designated as farm land and keep it that way so they didn't pay anything to acquire the l l c but out of pocket but they did agree to assume the mortgage they agreed to personal liability on mortgage rianna lucas came to the closing where none of the mortgages transferred over with seven thousand dollars or closing costs and they also and then they they agreed to continue to work the farm and to assist in owns the property free and clear is because of the farm land preservation money which the government doesn't alleges any dirty money at all right ok so you know i know but the seven thousand is there other valuable consideration she contributed i'm taught and i'm not talking about is the only one who put any money out of pocket at that you know in terms of the idea where the l l c shares went over to the new members the only money that came out of anybody's pocket i believe was yellow  it was a seven thousand i don't think her husband put their money i think it was just hers and that's as far as i know that's the only information in the record that was the government asked for some discovery those were the discovery responses that she submitted and then the judge decided s something you really were counseled i believe my time is up if the well let me let me just point out and i think when you look at what the district court's opinion says and where the problem here then i think if we turn to that it's the same army and i think is that the statute says this is the rule and we need to follow the rule and there are other methods if you if you want to forfeit other people's interests and those interests are independent there's a mechanism to do it and it's not true for future thank you thank you coun said proceed to pay for this and under twenty one u s c a fifty three c which is the relation back doctor and states that all title and proceeds that in the united states upon to commit upon the creation of those proceeds so here asking the court to do is to treat it like the previous owners of the l l c these two major awful and tucker and in a normal real estate transaction that would be the correct way to analyze this but here their interest in the l which owns the farm was a paid completely with proceeds and so the relation back doctoring if he here twenty one u s d a fifty three c which is that title and proceeds vast in the united states government as soon as they are created so you know what happened here was that there was a transfer of ownership of the l l c and proceeds criminal procedure what led to that transfer as penis proceeds here were the reason for the transfer the united states took over rowing in seven thousand dollars work in the form of the word that must have significance right there that i think no significant this let's say i paid for your plane ticket to go to the closing for your house so i get a piece of your house paying closing costs does not give you an interest in the land what gave what provide to be interest in the land here was the seven hundred and seventy five thousand dollars which was a consideration for taking over ownership of  developers is a legitimate l l c separate from lucas it is it belongs to the diamond developers interest which dates back to two thousand and four preceded the government's the proceeds were invested were invested in and as i said it's well settled case law that rd parties cannot have a superior interest in proceeds of a crime and really what why did liabilities is not consideration well one would think if you're a contract and you agreed to pay off my mortgage that would be that would be consideration when you're saying well let me back up here so here you lucas is scheme and it's a valuable asset that he obtained as a result of the crime it's clearly the proceeds it's property derived from or constitute drives from his criminal violation so it was completely proper for the united states to forfeit the farm here and then the other members of the lp were able to come forward and file a claim as they say here and present evidence that they provided valuable consideration  you know well because i guess the issue of why this might be confusing is that it was a look at family took control of the l l c and defacto then became owners of the farm there are other ways to get the proceeds right if you if you lose this appeal you're going to you're going to try to pursue lucas and the the property through other means right you're not without a remedy that's not by question but let me let me ask it again i'm sorry i'm not asking clear questions if you lose this appeal you're not without a remedy are you i assume the government will pursue other remedies law a criminal for of lucas interest mr lucas was interest in the l l c and or a civil forfeiture of his family members interests in the l z i mean i suppose he could do that but that that wouldn't change statutory framework under step because they're pretty cannot have a superior interest and criminal procedure as well settled even this circuit has ruled that and here the start parties are trying to make this claim was completely purchased with proceeds what's the this the farm which is that property i mean developers bought the farm in two thousand and four before the criminal proceeds ever came to light correct fact that this petitioner is no longer owned by innocent rd parties but rather this petitioner is now owned by someone who has been deemed a convicted criminal and his claimants you know fall to the government for not getting the defendants interest and lpn in both those cases their district court cases but they are well reasoned the district court said no that it was completely within the government's discretion to directly forfeit the has raises concerns the innocent owner defense would have been a defense if the government were seeking to forfeit the proceeds and if the government were seeking to forfeit the l l c rather than the farm because then the people who own the c have standing to contest the forfeiture of the l l c and that would be the wife coming in and saying listen i acquired an interest in the yellow sea through paying seven thousand dollars and doing other stuff for the l l c so i'm an innocent owner the forfeit lucas's interest in the yellow sea through his criminal case they haven't done that procedural matters and that's why what they're doing here is wrong and there's a mechanism for other members of the l l c to come in and contest of corporate  that i think the government's spending a lot of time on its procedure the l l c owns this farm independent independent of a lien because of the money that the state in jersey paid that's not criminal money allege reassign the mortgage but proceeds didn't go anywhere so but that's all irrelevant because that's not what they sought to forfeit what they sought to forfeit was a farm that an l l c owns and procedural matters and if you look at what they did and wife then the wife can come in and say look i'm a part owner of the house and i had no idea that my husband was involved in criminal activity you can forfeit my interest of the house and you cut a deal that's not what they did the way it's done has to be consistent with the law and so this idea that you know she's guilty or she's a cohort or something there's no evidence of that and just to say it in a brief it's just there's no evidence in the record that bree had any any knowledge that anything andrew lucas was doing was improper and there's certainly evidence that she contributed or own funds and her own sweat equity and assumed the mortgage agreed to assume the mortgage a person to be on the mortgage with no knowledge of any other husband criminal activity so how it's done matters here it wasn't done properly they may have a way a mechanism to get his interest in in the l l c through the criminal case but what they've done here is they've taken her questions ok think you would like to think counsel for their excellent argument an excellent briefing in this case we will take the case under advisement