the panel although only two of us are sitting here also includes judge radke who is unable to be with us today the the arguments are recorded she will review them before eleven thirty one zero five higgins avenue it is that property that is the issue underlying this action completely let me stop you there i'm not sure that you i thought the the ownership of the property was in down but there's it's there's a claim that it was procured by fraud and so that's still an open question i would additionally point out here out of that in the for the ancillary forfeiture proceedings where higgins made its claim to the property after it was forfeited by stockist to the united states government the property was released to higgins avenue l l c and taken out of the forfeiture not by the not by the judge it was done by the government that's correct your honor but the only basis that the government toda attorneys the government's offer to to remove it from the forfeiture order gone to it or gotten a court order saying that you were entitled to it well that would have required a hearing your honor and if we would have gone for a hearing at that point that would have been a trial which was the same thing that was being accomplished by the u s or it was being accomplished but i'm not sure it was it was taken out and disposed of by the government the government was satisfied with your your claim at that point and and  forfeited to the united states government and the forfeiture order in judgment were entered that property belonged to the united states at that point right under under except up into the value of the property yes well your hon forfeited all right and title pursuant to a hearing where they admitted that the value that the recoverable value in this property the fact is admitted during the forfeiture here in the state that the value of this property was only five hundred thousand dollars beyond the three point determination as to the value of the property i would disagree with the jam and i would disagree with your honor in the forfeiture normally just decided that question your honor i believe this is a direct statement where she finds that the value of the property is five hundred thousand dollars and the value of all seven properties is one point seven million which is less than the two point eight that was a pursuit doesn't want to believe it was it was fully loaded that's that's her position strangely your honor in her order though she does not talk about the forfeiture hearing at all she talks about the failure figgins to have raised it in a motion before the district court and it would have never had that opportunity that that was something that was going to be done that the other state action was going and you were going to take some action over there there to try and get get the case dismissed which we did your honor that you did and then you came back a bit late which was a problem for her to tell her and then because you were in successful action based on the allegations and that action they found that that's enough that was enough of a claim of ownership that the property could be forfeited and as the judge said they conceded that for purposes of argument and then went on to the next step conce proceedings so and in the ancillary proceedings we put forth proof to the u s attorney who owns the property in the government on the property at that point we have forfeited up to the amount of the judgment that's a judgment that could only have or entered an order into that correct and if you had said up to the amount of the judgment you know i'm forfeiting the the the following properties but that it turns out that one of the properties is worth more and that's not been for  but that's not what the policeman who are forced to says nor is that what the law for which is something are still on this problem at that point everybody kind of assume that all these properties were not worth that much that's correct maybe they're right but maybe they're wrong but but if they were wrong fokus needed to make a claim in the federal court action either on appeal or during the preliminary four during the forfeiture hearing that the value of these properties were greater so there could have been something in the order as we saw on in the cases cited that said forfeiture hearing was about moreover because all of it was forfeited pursuant to the forfeiture statute what's clear is that once the defendant loses the property under no circumstances can that property go back to the defendant even if the u s government does not exercise its rights with respect to the property the forfeiture law is clear on that point as well so there's no basis here for the property ever go back to all of its right title and interest in the property were wiped out in that foreclosure action up to the maybe you want to have it here so so so in the courts order on the forfeiture hearing not where you can you just give us an example sure give me one second  it would be three thirty four of the appendix or one second three million plus reducing the amount by the forfeiture of his coke coconspirators over two point eight million the court then went on to discuss the individual properties got to number seven which was this property and had this property may be substituted as to talk is confirmed as ownership under oath in pleadings before the supreme court of queen's county and through his counsel during the hearing of the asset forfeiture the equitable the seasonal equity in this property may total five hundred thousand dollars in some the court has concluded that stock is his ownership interest in the following seven properties the total estimated of the forfeited assets is estimated to be one point seven nine eight million accordingly these properties may be substituted to satisfy the money judgment against a talk as the court know to ever that those properties may not be forfeited to the government before it is complied with the third party notification provisions of the federal law so there is a specific finding this to the value and there's a specific finding in the order that she everybody assumed it was last and that's the way they decided that's the way it was handled but now there's a different question and she's saying that that issue wasn't litigated who would know best as to whether whether she made a finding or whether she will again if you look at the district  honor the issue that she says is that there was no motion made before the district court by higgens she doesn't even talk in her order about the about the forfeiture hearing or her order as a result of that here and she had nor is that completely in order and as to say this issue was not before the court and it could not have been before the court and was not necessary to her decision because he issued income up going thing that was before her was was it something that could be a substitute for for that a found it was because we did not dispute it certainly wouldn't dispute it because we were claiming in a state court action that we own the property so that was issued before the issue of whether as she states in her water very clearly the issue of whether or not my client had any interest in the property above the judgment was not mitigated before her in spite of the fact that they came to her on a pre motion conference and then waited five years to seek  of course the statute that the court referred counsel two hundred fifty three p only gives jurisdiction authority to forfeit a substitute up to the value of the judgment so you don't even need to say it however jammin which is i forfeited various properties up to the amount of the judgment she specifically states and that was the issue before this issue of whether or not the client retained an interest was specifically not before and she and another minute if there's something more that you or something again the only thing that i would point out is that once the property is forfeit in the in the law is clear it belongs to the united states and it can never return to the defendant that's the law that's what i'm asking this court to enforce thank you very much i will reserve decision in this case thank you both for your arguments much appreciate