the court please this is the issue raised by jeffery parent owes ancillary petitions is a relatively simple and straightforward which is were the written assignments of a interest in these m k p insurance policies in the amount of nine hundred fifty seven thousand hundred fifty seven dollars would be supported but i a valid consideration and if they were supported by valid consideration this simons were valid and made petition a jeffrey parent o a bona fide a purchase of a value within the meaning of the fo whether jeffrey was reasonably without cause to believe that the policies were subject to forfeiture at the time of the assignments well that's the second issue and i'll be happy to get right to then if the court yes sure but i'm sorry  to get right to that issue with respect to whether or not he had sufficient cause to believe that the corporate policies were subject to forfeiture as of the time of the assignment bear in mind the time of the symes january d to jeffrey parent zero was a labor work so the two what do you know he knew that his stepfather had been indicted for what he'd been indicted for interfering with the into turn revenue investigation could he possibly know with this time that these policies are in jeopardy when there was nothing said in the initial indictment issued in september two thousand and nine two thousand and eight excuse me anything about policies about forfeiture about fraudulent conduct or anything of that nature not such evidence was presented by the u s attorney's office at the hearing the facts remain the same he knew nothing he what was in that letter not a word about forfeiture not a word about things being of notice i mean that they happen notice of profit for future if you know the financial transactions are being made with the property that different parent don't know that i wouldn't know who knows what's in the proper letter you know what's in the proper letter to a prophet let us says that jeff that thomas parent o and marcia parent oh are under investigation there's thought that he did this an actual knowledge either isn't an information from which he could have known what is the standard is an actual knowledge or is reasonably without cause to believe that the assets were subject to forfeiture though he was being reasonably without cause to believe that the assets were subject to forfeiture when he knows that the these assets are being used in the us you know as possible violations of numerous federal criminal laws i'm not i guess i'm not asking the fact question i'm saying why isn't that enough to be submitted is not how does he know that he knows that from the that gives him some reason to know that this property might be subject to or future not that he's on notice that a forfeiture is going to be issued but he's on notice that this stuff might be forfeited and that that takes him out of the stepfather has been put in jail and there has been three months the government comes to him and says ok to his attorney says we want you to communicate cooperate here's a proper letter here it is now go into the room and tell us everything you know by m k p does it say that the insurance policies owned by m k p may be subject to forfeiture not a word does not say that there isn't a grand jury investigation going on money thomas murray he said he knew that at the time of the proper here his testimony said that mr carr is but does that mean that he knows that there was fraud well they with the tools but he also said that he knew that this that these insurance premiums were being paid to the houses all right does that mean it he knew there was fraud being committed does he know and let's take me one step further we're sitting in this distinguished courtroom we learned judges was lawyers a certain amount of experience do we know probably have a certain amount of experience a little bit but venerable occur no do we know that because  investigation was going on that easy insurance policies owned by m k p i may be subject to forfeiture somewhere down the line jeffrey parent oh never heard the word forfeiture he for sure i'm sorry subject before hotter subject for future it's cause to believe that the policies were subject for staff room now and you reasonably have the cause to believe you don't even have to know what the word forfeiture means  to pay premiums on the policies and k p was essential not doing anything at this point thomas parent zero being incarcerated he put breached the money into his own pocket to paid for these premiums was a doing that with knowledge that means that these policies are going to be for forfeited to the government he went and worked to enable assignments to be excuse me to arrange for the sale of these policies so the policies could be sol he went and visit at the direction of the insurance agent got on a plane went up to massachusetts and met with the step grandfather in order to get permission so that the policies could be sold that they do all of this because jeffrey parent oh knew the policies are going to be forfeited why were they going through this amount of effort when was this  the rangers be made for camps to be made to sell these particular policies and it jumped that juncture he was advised by an attorney jeff help yourself protect yourself get an assignment of the interest in these particular products of from what i'm sorry protect yourself from while protect yourself so that you're going to lose all you won't lose all of this money very simple collateral he owns that money today not a dime has been paid on the principle i mean he's going to lose it because he owes it to someone else i'm sorry when you say he it's he he's in danger of losing it what's causing the loss because it's in the it what did he need to protect himself from that's my question to m k p is no longer is doing business the stepfather is in incarcerated it was arrested and went to be put in the county jail and he's been there and then into prison ever since since september sixteenth two thousand and eight are you suggesting that the fact that the father was in jail threatened his ability to get the money out of n k p i'm saying there was no if they do get money from m p p because m p p is not doing business and k p owes jeffrey the money back i assume we're clear on that the jeff i'm not clear on that but i'm trying to ask a question that doesn't depend on whether that's the case or not right is whether he had notice that if he was owed the money he was liable to lose it because there might be a forfeiture and all of the things you're saying now seem to suggest that he tried to get those assignments because he was afraid that criminal proceedings having to sounds logical m k p is run we agree m p p is own run by thomas parent thomas parent though is in jail thomas parent does not making any money m k p o's people money it has credit does among these creditors are jeffrey parent zero jeffrey parent zero is not needed to get his money back his father is in jail how is he going to get his money back the attorney says to him get an assignment  interest in those policies and therefore when the if the policies are sold or if your grandfather down a road answer the short answer is he's going to lose it other creditors as well years now since are saying what about the  p back in two thousand and six the proceeds of the two longs that he took out from american home mortgage so that they could build this property to a home together give back to jeffrey and tresor to young people and to their credit thought about this and said wait this isn't right if we take this money m k p s bank account will be down nothing there  p has credit speech old money it's not right for us to take our money first and let these people went totally without any recourse at all so they concluded that but that was going to happen because  know they did is totally on their own volition i felt this was the right thing to do then all the time through or months go by and they realize thomas is still in jail when are going to get our money at all what are we going to do at this point the proposal was made by the insurance agent that the policies be sold and that some money be realized that's where i would very likely this is yes for the question  where did they get the for that home is a very nice home was advanced they had a loan given by him k p was something like four hundred thousand dollars and they helped pay for that and there's no question that was done the property turned out with improvements and stuff even geoffrey works with his hands too that they were able to secure our persuade the american home mortgage that they should be at the m with a new loan in the amount of thinkers like it up over a million dollars and out of that a million dollars it paid off the countrywide loan and the balance of the money was delivered to m k p so that by jeffrey today how he's going to pay for no one can figure out but there it is he's the person who's on those loans the american almost perfectly legitimate loans known as question them otherwise now monies were advanced to pay interest in those two loans was in excess of ten thousand dollars a month out of one attend that out of that ten thousand dollars six thousand dollars was paid over by him k p so he paid the interest on those loans six thousand and p p four thousand of his own pocket but the principle remains as it is still there you know it and to my amusement the district judge but the government's argument in his decision said well since he was getting paid these interest you know he's not owed any money we say judge what about the principle it's untouched thank you council i'm sorry thank you evidence and made basically factual findings that he jeffrey was not reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject  had not established that there was not at least partial repayment of any loans that there were reasonable cause determination by the or lack of reasonable cause yes was a determination made by the district court yes premiums for the ass you're forfeiting and getting the proceeds and then just people left holding their i'm not sure i understand and jeff and his company are unclear to say the least he did make payments of the last couple of months of premiums but there were simultaneous or near the same time money coming jeff count so perhaps your honor perhaps not nearly of course as much as had been paid over the years he paid a couple of months at the end well i mean right ok but i mean there was evidence he did that he did loan money he did give money  jeff parent i had a real to his mortgage company the question is whether there was a loan with a stablish terms that was an antecedent debt that could form consideration for the slater assignment and there's nothing in the record about the terms of any loan between tom and jeff at the time counsel has talked about the fact that tom parent oh was basically paying the interest jeff's mortgage and that's true he was paying the interest on jeff's mortgage but there was no evidence that there was an agreement about what the interest would be on the loan between jeff and tom this is all just an the but that's complicated financial back and force sometimes that's what families do even completely law abiding families  in such a situation i think what you do is you you look for the reality you look for the concrete evidence i mean you look to see did he actually transfer that money to pay p and then you say yeah there's something real there there was real consideration that went in that direction there was but it wasn't a good in two thousand and four had put a lot of money into the house then you come back to the issue of the repayment at the time of the repayment by which i may and the time when and that is eight hundred seventy eight judge who could if that's the seven ninety three plus there is eighty five the next day so i had the same the same number eight seventy eight went from n k p over to jeff's account paid back to jeff at that point the fact that he unilaterally for whatever reason decides to ship the money back over to him k p you can't just create a loan with your one sided action  well ok if you say you can't just create a loan with your one sided action will then then you get it back i mean yeah i can give you a bunch of money and say ok here's  but then you give it back you don't keep it and go wasn't alone no you don't necessarily get it back because the question on this problem which we're we're now talking about is whether he's a bona fide purchaser for you the question is when he took the assignment what was the consideration for it and keep in mind he didn't just take one assignment and you know there was absolutely not any reasonable  took the full amount of the supposed to moan on two policies tried to take it on full are but two of the insurers said no so the full amount on two  policy and the question there is not you know sort of a argue out some money the question is is there a debt a valid antecedent debt that formed the consideration for this exchange but it would if it had been like an investment we give you the money on the hope that it'll make more money but we realise it might make less money if it makes less we won't get as much because you're sharing in the risk yes but why does it have to be alone in order to be a bona fide repayment why can't it be a bona fide a return of capital but without being a low no you had no entitlement to the return of capital i mean in order for there to be a valid exchange there had to have been a real entitlement to that and debt if it was just an investment that went wrong it's not incentives if you don't look if i give you eight hundred thousand dollars with the idea that you're going to go out and build a house and you don't build the house then i have been made an investment that when you give me the money back i mean there was an agreement there ok so you build the house and you lose money that's one thing but i don't think it's an answer to say he wasn't owed the money i mean unless it's good because his father was a crook i mean well and unfortunately a lot of that comes back to a so i mean i think your perception that jeff might have got left holding the  he may have done but that doesn't mean that the forfeiture a fifty three ancillary proceeding gives some i remet it for the judge why is asking thoughtful questions based on the idea that it was an investment i was asking questions based on the sumption for the moment yes it was an investment let's assume just for the moment that it was something in the nature of an informal investment so it's not a loan because the vestment goes bust but they don't owe you the money but still why wouldn't a return on investment maybe even an early return on investment all right you invested in this but we're not going to go forward with it so we're giving all the money back why couldn't that service consideration for a bonafide  parent i had the burden of proof at the ancillary hearing and just i guess offered not just does it really turn on whether it was a loan or not or does it turn instead on how vague the terms were regardless of whether it was a lo because you could have it be a return on investment which would not be alone but you're suggesting if all the thoughts of been crossed and the i's dotted that might have been a basis for a bona fide a  entitle you to repayment in a way that other investment would not and but it would be possible that you could have an agreement that you could establish as ancillary claimant entitle you to a return of investment perhaps in that situation you could then argue that that could form the basis for a purchase in exchange for an assignment but we're a long way from that here and of course none of that goes to the which is whether he had reasonable cause to believe the property was subject to forfeiture and at least as of the time of the proffer agreement it's cleared that he should have well it's not a should have it's an objective standard whether or not he came to a realization was aware of what forfeiture was he had the information that it gave him cause to believe if the property was i would bet if you if there is something that's owned by a separate  entity and you you happen to indicted this and the separate entity there's no mention of particular assets or i mean why would he know that these policies owned by another entity were so effective for which he was aware that they were the premium had been paid from the proceeds of the very business activity that is now being investigated i mean if you want to hypothesize that he was analyzing the state versus federal law questions than perhaps he would have uncertainty about how that would come out but to believe the property was subject to forfeiture yes and he did the evidence was that the assignment was made to protect him and there was no question he was very involved in the business practice himself and that the the proper it was the month before the assignment that was seeking forfeiture jeffrey is intitled to a credit in any restitution order because of the money he paid the admitted counsel now says will but there were no formal documents stepson a step further the insurance agent says he need the money jeff to put in so these policies stay in existence events the money he said well there was no formal agreement on this ok but he did get before he pay that premium he did monies that were paid to american express but not the bill not the bills them self's that we put in the exhibit itself they were never challenged at all by the u s attorney's office that this was done but the check was made out not to american express it was laid out to the corporation i don't remember that rightly i just don't remember but since they raised the question about this hundred seven thousand dollars the check was put into evidence with respect to that by the government and so she testified to that judge rogers raised a very valid point about an investment as it happened the district judge said well maybe what was this was was a contribution the ground we submit that means entitle to get the money back and everyone agreed it was entitled to get the money back this was the gift he didn't borrow all this money on his own which he is obligated to pay to american mortgage t law is that the cause to believe the property being subject to forger it is not sufficient to say hey petitioner you had cause to believe that some properties owned by thomas parent oh by m k p somebody else is subject to forfeiture you have to know that this particular property the policies were subject to forfeiture thank you counsel thank y