in the personal property when given and what is retained by the club is it a bailer belli relationship a license or what i mean what  we argued that there is an agency interest i think the individuals at least have an interest as a possessor of the items i don't think there's a licensee issue theoretically i guess it could be seen through through the  collective ownership right arise from i think that elected ownership right is simply an ownership right we've argued that mr carlson has a right to be here as the agent of the of the club itself but what's the club's ownership right honor i simply do not know that i assume at some point they did and the evidence is under spewed at that mr carlson oversees the distribution well that's the agency argument for mr carlson of course being the appropriate person to assert the club's interests but we're trying to get some framework for analyzing the club's property interests here and it's as if the club didn't buy this this stuff and there isn't some other evidence of ownership and i had the club and this and that the club was the bail or and the individual club members in the indianapolis and fort wayne chapters were the baileys and had to return this property after they were convicted or otherwise disassociated with the club you know what is the nature of the club's property interest your your honor the record is undisputed the club itself owns these materials the question what is the nature of that ownership and your honor i do not know where their purchase where they're manufactured from the reason i start talking about m organization purchases all of this loco ware and other paraphernalia and distributes it to the local chapters who in turn distribute it to their members you are not members go on the e bay site and buy it themselves i i am positive it's not that you bay answer the bell it is marketed on e bay for anybody who wants to buy it members and nonmembers that live there there is some evidence that some materials are sold on e bay i think that the material sold on e main might not be the same materials that we're talking about here i think it might be the difference between use a green bay packers between between buying a t shirt that says green bay packers and actually buying a helmet that th packers use for for themselves ok so this is in the nature of uniforms i think that's a very good example yes your honor but we don't know who purchases the uniforms and therefore owns them and then to court equipped with that information if you're asking us to open this on sixty and order the district court to hold a hearing you have to tell us what evidence you're going to submit your honor there's there's no theory of ownership that says only the person who actually purchases an object ok what is your theory of ownership that support and what's the support in indiana law for that at the club songs this and loan it to the individual members through  local chapters or john i think bailey's of the club as the pay lawyer or some other such relationship i again i think the uniform is is a very good example that's ownership by the club no matter no association but the bottom line as i i was trying to figure out how the club exercises this collective ownership what we know on the present record your honor that everyone who becomes a member of the club signs an affidavit that the government introduced into evidence saying i understand that these materials  belong to the club and that's the club's property whether or not the club went to wal mart i think we can draw an inference from the fact that mr coulson oversees the distribution of these materials that the club was the one that and so you could have made a showing in your sixty motion and that would you can make out a case for a full blown evidentiary hearing to put the ownership interest in play your your honor that there can this case said that this this these materials do not stay with the criminal defendants when they leave the organization these materials belong to the organization the membership affidavit everyone signs was twice introduced into evidence bo the criminal trial and on the sixty p motion mr carlson's affidavit is undisputed on this record and the government has has never disputed it what you're asking for right now is for essentially a credibility determination to be made without the benefit of that evidentiary hearing saying that mr carlson is wrong saying that that is simply a sham and that's precisely what this court rejected in the funds case closed during the pendency of the briefing in this case where where this court said no at at pleading stage we cannot look toward the judgment ownership that is a question that goes toward toward the end of forfeiture hearing as a question to be resolved have and the properties that are seized at various locations and annapolis the issue of adequate notice has to be addressed first if the court finds that the government i adequate notice in this case simply put the ten or fifteen her possession filed by mr carlson should be doesn't ask because it's not timely and the task for adequate notice is why the chef wide as that and council could not answer that question for that reason it can't be expected that the government could answer that question this is in that case where we was the national president of the outlaws and he was and and milwaukee but in this at the time of this indictment the national chapter was florida  stop for at some point to say hey i'm the guy that disperses all this property  never conceded that it's owned by the end tire membership of the club what i would concede is a few i asked a member of the outlaws who said they would tell you i think it's owned by the club recognized by state law and there is no case and in indiana law that i could find or i suppose that opposing counsel would find that says that this type of collective a roster court answer to that is no this is not a rocket not his property and tourist this is a sham and this is a sham property and tourist that these folks have created i think we're all struggling with that the nature of the asserted property interests here i mean you would concede i think that some other organizational association that pulls it resources and purchases property and then authorizes its individual members to possess that property whether pursuant to a formal bailment or a loan or otherwise  right i mean that we don't really have a legitimate property interest even though now they're not incorporated in some situations maybe in other situations i wouldn't say so but you know we're not talking about ten people who get to gather at the office and buy a powerball ticket you know can't provide in the case like this and you know we don't know who all of them our members are of the outlaws nationwide and the and that's the reason for this entering that this it's not an i  nies the statute says yeah i noticed a people's are massive i'm not very bad on that concept i don't know that it fair but in a case like this where you were really don't know ascertain so that's mcquade dead in that case and i think it's reasonable so it and that's all amplified by the facts of the case here it's hard to maybe just see how they can maintain this collective property theory when they're selling the property on the enter that so if some other person buys this property and they enter not is it property of the outlaws and it's impossible to understand when this property is seized in this case from people who are not members of the outlaws and were not members of the  back to the us collective property notion and i think that's not recognized under indiana saying my time's up is ok thank you very much  whether you find it on the street all of the laws when it has which errors thank you thank you very much counsel cases taken under advisement our final