john hundreds was convicted of a crime and sentenced to pay one point three million dollars restitution this case is not about criminal law though it's about property rights because kathy hendri nature of the argument ok are you speaking about the ownership interests as they were on the day the rest to show an order was entered that's when the u s lien attached or are you discussing the ownership interests as they were after the divorce decree both impacted your honor that's why i'm confused yes going to be one date or the other but not both at once so which of these dates is the correct date it seems to me that we need to figure out what the ownership interests were on the day the lien attached and not anything else but your brief is full of talk about what the divorce decree did in all sorts of post lien events any of them relevant i believe that it is your honor because the divorce decree created a new set of property known as became the people the divorce decree is junior to the attachment of the l whatever property rights the united states got it got on the day of the rest to sion order and a state court can't countermand a federal restitution order seems to me we need to figure out what the act it talks about co owners property ok and if we're talking about the date of the restitution order that statute says that the remedies available united states under this chapter which includes the collection of restitution may be enforced against property which is cohen by a debtor and the other person only to the extent allowed by the law of the state where the property is located so now we're delving into wisconsin indeed we are and you know i ask my question because your brief doesn't focus on what katherine's rights were on that day and if that's the right question that's what we needed to have addressed in the breeze ok the district court didn't focus on that either know that in the united states break doesn't focus on that i'm not sure how we're supposed to decide this case with everybody picking different dates rather than everybody concentrating on what was true on a single day well let's concentrate on that date your honor wisconsin is a marital property state it's the only state in the union that switched from common law like illinois and indiana and the community property type system so under wisconsin law there's two types of property there is individual property a kaffee hendricks has an individual property because after the sentencing her father gave her a gift to put down as a downpayment on her new house when she abandoned the old family homestead and there's individual property there's no join ownership there's no joint ownership there at all and then there's marital property and marital property is a sensually everything that was acquired during a retirement plan the money that went into that retirement plan was completely from her employment and we have the couple being owed the judges the dischord judge's decision says it was a state tax refund it's actually a federal tax refund ok was about eighteen thousand dollars that was owned jointly at that time there was a new business that had been created called a j's auto body ok a g s itself owned a building that was acquired with one hundred percent financing from a bank it owned  some equipment that was under lease like the paper with us from the paint company ok the mechanics owned a bunch of tools and then there were some miscellaneous parts and stuff this is the stuff that that ages couldn't have existed but for the fact that things from custom collision were stolen liquidating the cash in the cash used to support the business there's no evidence of that and also in the united states a brief they talk about the fact that covert credit union had the lien on custom  assets that might be recovered back to the old business would be available for us to shoot victims and be available for the bank which was also not made whole in this whole process to know that stuff was both still and money w procedure were we weren't allowed to be involved at all we want to defend the united states says that you were invited to be involved in decline is that representation falls i would say so your honor all right so we please let's somebody is not telling us the truth the united states says that your client was invited to participate and declined and you say that he was not invited we have why have the positions accurately you or we will figure out who's telling us the truth and who's lying to us ok czech scripts decision let me ask you one more question did you contend in the district court that the correct day on which to measure property interests was the day the restitution order was entered i contended all you know that's the problem you can't say a and not a and b very credible judge did you contend that that was the right day or were you simply arguing the right day is whichever one is better for my client no your honor the arguments to the district court was that wisconsin marital property law sets the property rights of the couple that's not the question i am asking obviously wisconsin law determines property interest the question is as what day did you argue in the district court because you didn't argue on appeal that the right day is the day of the restitution it was in there but i also argued that the divorce made some changes i just don't see the divorce can be relevant because it post dates the lien i understand that argument back to quickly marital property and the judge's decision there was a decision that the tax refund should be allocated according to the earnings that each of them earned to contribute toward the tax refund so there wasn't an equal division of the tax refund in the original order of the district court there was a  reconsideration the judge said no no no this is fifty fifty it's marital property it was acquired during the marriage it should be split fifty fifty if that's the case then the tax refund also needs to be split fifty my name is hiding there ng and i represent united states in this manner and i represented the united states alone district court to respond to the court's questions and the palin's argument the correct date is january tenth of twenty fourteen that is when the rest touche an order was entered that's when the lena taxed that is the argument that the united showed why why is your brief full of arguments about whether the de force was a real divorce and whether catherine and john were cooperating all of that seems quite irrelevant if the right day is the day of the restitution order everything that follows afterward  reason one into the issues regarding the divorce because and i think it wasn't clear to judge crap because her opinion is chock full of stuff suggesting the divorce wasn't real and there were other machinations that if you just have a focus on about what were the rights on the day of the rest we should order all of that is irrelevant but it seemed to be quite relevant to judge graham i think the court was trying to respond to opponents argument that the divorce somehow minimum of a half interest in katherine hendrix retirement account and that katherine hendrix had no legitimate property interest in the fraudulent wages that are represented in the income tax refund and in the ages audit body which was detailed in our brief as to how it was set up with money that was taken from cold manage that was dirty money fraudulent money was used and put into checking and savings account in ages same checking and savings account defendant went to the bank international begam hurston represented that he owned all the property of custom collision free and clear and that that would be the equipment they be using at the business that was not true and that is in the record so that was the basis of the district court's decision that katherine hendricks had no legitimate marital interest on the wisconsin statute because it was not  that property was not legitimately earned in accrued pursuant to the statutes that's why the wages were treated differently we only were able to recover the portion of defendant's wages because she found that those wages were fraudulent and regarding the the hearing i want to be very clear on that hath hung the she kept appealing has been represented by same f document one hundred three filed on december sixteenth of two thousand and fourteen and objected to the property we're asking to be liquidated and at the bottom he says where for katherine hendricks objects to the motion and request a hearing there  appellant never renewed her request even when prompted by the court that she wanted another year i don't know that the district court would have denied her or hearing she just never renewed or qu just to reiterate i think the district court of may have been confusing as to why we got into all the discussion about the divorce but it really was regarding whether the the divorce in any way extinguished that lien in our argument i think the court found was it does not and her property rights i think were very clear at the time that arlene attached the defendant's property interests is that we are entitled to half of her retirement account and two ages auto body because it was fraudulent we set up it is true that it was fully financed but based on misrepresentations made by defendant to that bank and cash was used to set it up it's laid out in our brief tools which this court  at substantial nonexempt interest in that i mean that would be determined obviously the united states could not go forward if there were no hot with any unfortunate but it's our belief that there is sufficient equity and maybe substantial equity in the real estate and  g sits on now regarding the tools and other equipment that is going to have to be sorted out because i think there's third party creditors that would potentially specially cold manage who still say their tools are in that business so you know we'll have to be very careful and giving notice if there's any liquidation of the actual assets and equipment but as far as the real estate i think it's weevil who comes down to the because a lot of times in kind of a business like that some of the workers have their own to correct and that there is in the right and that that very much well would likely be the case here at least for one of the employees  with respect to the peter current issue that tools are being sold and longer through this business that will happen in the criminal case when we weren't involved we never had a chance to listen to mr kearns testimony to cross examine him as to what they we thought were going on we just had no opportunity the court is relying on proceedings it had in sentencing what is certainly the tenor of the decisions that the court seems to believe that he was a scoundrel ok could be worse terms for it we didn't want to participating in that as to the recent syncing hearing that was a hearing on the recent insane that was not a hearing on property rights at that time you can look at the text that's in there that documents we had no right to participate in the recent and seeing hearing we weren't the criminal defendant third parties can't come in and say the sense should be shorter or we could be a character witness but we can't participate in that hearing so i'm not sure what you mean when you say you can't if the district judge invited your client to spay then you could but as we have already determined the parties have let's just say different views about whether the judge invited katherine just as you will look at the record as to the tax refund the earnings were j that was to be his business it helped to have him occupied and not fretting about the fact that he was losing his father so when the sentencing took place young j continued to work in the business with another manager and they would each own their own tools and young a j proof of his purchase of his tools through the local so the money that was earned was legitimate ages was a going concern john henricks got a paycheck he was not the owner of that business so he got a w two and there was a joint tax return filed where the tax refund under wisconsin marital property law has to be fifty fifty there's no finding that this was the legal money o