morning you may personally i'm jeff rosensweig little rock i represent mrs man sending a man with regard to this matter is i understand first the government is no longer claiming the purse self an interest in the ninety three firearms and judge miller got the issue right on the question of whether mrs man had done anything herself to lose an interest in it and judge miller was correct on that the question then of course will come ashore whether or not she's entitled to half the proceeds of the of the sale now there's no question that if they were getting divorced and that she would be entitled to half the assets of the problem we have here is they're not getting divorced although actually years ago a divorce petition was filed but it's never been pursued and they are in fact still still married  question is whether or not arkansas law at this point permits her to get half the interest and or another way of saying it is that protects her her share against dr pierce's attempts to gain all the weapons misses the weapons were generally titled as we understand it the name of exotic weaponry they were weapons that you required a license to hold and even though they were they were purchased with marital funds they could not she couldn't own them because of she didn't have or have any interest in getting a firearm license the arkansas case which considering arkansas law on the question of equity of whoring for preacher on the question of in a an innocent spouse being protected that the appropriate thing would be for this court to certify the matter to the arkansas supreme court  determination of arkansas law and the court after question yesterday and and this may happen not sure whether your client really this really bears on your client but this is a forfeiture action but yet the court determined that the grounds for forfeiture were not present why didn't that in the the district court involvement in the case how did the court have jurisdiction do anything ordering the thing to take any action with respect to this property having found that it was not subject to bor statute covering forfeiture actions and i read it it says if if if forfeiture that property otherwise subject to forfeiture were property is otherwise subject to forfeit and there interest of other parties involved in the court can take certain actions but i'm just puzzled and interested in this question does the court even have that i would say would be a jurisdictional issue does the court have jurisdiction to take any action with respect to the property if it if it decides it's not subject to forfeiture your honor of that i mean you have to add yes you know i were were present and that they had been seized by the federal yes i understand that the intervenor appears in the intervenor asserts an interest in the title right so the intervenor and this boy has intervened  dr pierce asserting an interest in the title to the gods as a result of a judgement lean right now i presume but i have not studied the arkansas law judgement leans but i presume that a judge milian is generally in that attaches to all of the property real and personal that someone belongs to the blogs to a judgment debtor but that some fact has to be made to execute on which happened in this case there's an execution it comes back on satisfied does the intervenor have standing our jurisdiction for the intervene or in this circumstance to assert an interest in the firearms in this action well i'm not sure i'm not sure exactly how to how to answer that question i would say you know that he is there that they are not he should not be entitled or at least  an owner of firearms nonetheless although they couldn't have or he didn't even if he didn't have the right to possess it did have the right to possible right to go to some of the proceeds  control where they where so well looks to me like judge miller who's he does not judge you just sort of presume that since the interveners showed up and they had the judgment lien and the lien is where hundreds of millions of dollars then it feldman doctrine which would go to the jurisdiction of the district court and of this court to pass on several of the questions that  expect that it's going to one way or the other i feel obliged to address not first because it's logically prior now plaintiff has invoked rocker feldman  dr mans defense in the district court and here in the denial of discovery where the same court denied him in his that had the same court denied him in his twenty two fifty five action in order to go beyond showing that the the critical whole story was trumped up  and just to stop him from completing the showing that would actually persuade a court to act on it but exxon mobil which the plaintiff cites on plaintiff rather than someone who rangers and issue of federal law in the federal case it it it confines rooker and feldman to the situation where  the constitution and its implementing statutes define ditcher they have the jurisdiction of the respective courts exxon mobil recognizes that there are plenty federal the the the the the the federal conviction into play in shape court the federal conviction came first they the state action  ask the state auction was filed now your doctor man was indicted for the counts that the dr pierce persuaded the state courts were  of not not not not to disrespect your argument but my question is why does that really matter they result there's a verdict there's a case trying to verdict a verdict one hundred twenty two million or something ridiculously huge number  there's an attempt to execute on the judgment a written execution is received it comes back on satisfied you know i'm having a hard time finding a wrecker feldman question here that's going to if the plaintiff is right then it's not a question of whether your view is correct or my view is correct or someone else's view is correct on the merits but the court doesn't have jurisdiction to consider now when the court is what you charge but what you're talking about taking a state court judgment and applying it in federal court which is what what we're what a occurred in the in the case in the the court below seventeen thirty eight and under that the federal court is obliged to apply claimant issue preclusion the way that a court of the rendering state would apply and in the reply dream i demonstrate that aren't in shaw is one of the states where fraud on the court is an issue about whether to apply a state judgment and other words that i'm from my research indicates there are other states where it doesn't matter but in arkansas it does matter and this is critical to this appeal because one of the issues on the denial of any discovery parallel to that which dr mann shot in the twenty two for the fifty five action in this civil forfeiture action twenty two fifty five the court's very well aware is extremely limited remedy discovery only out the court's discretion and not by default there's a certificate of appeal ability requirement there is a truncated fact bill a development process and the the one hundred twenty two point five hundred million dollar judgment was a matter that of which fraud on the court would have been relevant in arkansas court and there are four it's relevant in the fact that a federal district court when someone brings that judgment across the street to the federal courthouse and tries to enforcements also simply tell me what this fraud on the court was i'm sorry so saying please tell me what this rod on the court was it was extra set fraud that kicked off the action by relying on planted evidence to the in that in the twenty two fifty five the district judge ordered trial counsel and then direct appeal counsel to collaborate with the prosecution without judicial supervision or the opportunity for objection to provide data and arguments before there are a response to show cause once again it wasn't simply truncated the fact finding process in the twenty you fifty five wasn't simply truncated your honor it was the nature and this this symbol for these civil forfeiture options open to door to normal discovery a question of whether someone committed a foul in suborning or providing that information it altered the evidentiary picture to dr mans prejudice in the twenty to fifty five because  the the trial court judge who's the deciding judge in these two actions and the twenty to fifty five action they the trial court judge relied heavily on alpha da generated by the prosecutors and trial direct appeal counsel that's part and coming to his conclusion that there was no evidentiary hearing needed think about my question of now the district court could have jurisdiction over this property once it found that forfeiture was not warranted in the case you know i don't believe that  was what you found it couldn't forfeit in my view they they the plaintiff united states what did anyone raise a question about authority or the jurisdiction of the court to continue or the authority of the court to order disposition of this property after it concluded that forfeiture was not warranted was that readies below i didn't find but the way that this came on your honor is that that decision was in the final judgment and i'm not sure i'd i'm not sure that every single issue that that should have been raised in the post judgment motions was but it had been our position that the that the plaintiffs well i'm not sure it was it would could have been raised before the court found that forfeiture was not warranted but want once it made that finding did anybody write this issue with the court after it made that conclusion no i do not believe so but your i don't think that's fatal because it goes to  stiction it goes to subject matter jurisdiction and just like just like the plaintiff can bring up broker feldman and it's pretty i can bring that up and all argument at the court can bring it up from the bench and i appreciate the court's doing so because the trouble me well i may not be correct i'm just i'm asking the question about your honor i i still appreciate the court's point i think seems to me that what they're they're likely to argue is that  on the court thing if it was they've asserted a judgment lien so they assert an interest in title on these guns that they do that and they're wrong and what i'm trying to throw out you have any reason why they're wrong other than hi holly do we have problems of jurisdiction i don't know the answer to that just well money it's not something that came up in the court below i'm here today to protect and preserve my client's interest by virtue of the hundred and two hundred twenty two point five million dollars judgment that he was awarded against randy man and to collect that judgment one of the things that we have done is to register it everywhere that it was necessary and to serve the red of execution against property that we knew was titled in dr man's name including these ninety three and has a regulated weapons that are at issue here i was prepared today to address sanjeeda man's claim which i think is without foundation under arkansas law which i believe is clear we have a statute that defines marital property and that statute says on its face that it applies this statute provides for the purpose of this section marital property sh man's claim against these assets dr man and all of his property are are subject to the judgment land dr pierce's judgment we did what we are required to do under the law to execute on this property by having a writ of execution served on the custody in which was a representative be a t f money and little rock and the lower courts found that the judg pretty perfected by that action the statute under which we were proceeding our code sixteen sixty six one twelve says that an execution shall be away on on property or goods or or rights or shares of stock or any real estate wants the red of execution is issued so we have done all that we can do on behalf of dr pierce to protect his interest in pursuing his judgment collecting his judgment against this property and we were more or less summoned into the federal court to do that when this forfeiture action was filed dr pierce was named as a climate we filed a verified claim the matter was submitted to the court upon stipulated facts and briefs and after that the court found that dr mans ownership interest was eclipsed by this judgment land and that sanjeeda man had no articulate articulable interest under arkansas law based on marital property or claim of equity and that the property should be sold and the proceeds awarded one hundred one hundred percent to dr pierce not course we applaud and hope the court will affirm here's my question you just confirmed what i thought i read in the record is that there was a lien it was perfected there were some claim made in the forfeiture action which happens every single day the federal courts adjudicate those claims every single day the question is to me in my mind is does the court have the right to direct the sale of these firearms because they can't be delivered to your client because he doesn't a national firearms act firearms dealers license class three license right and so they've got to go to someone that's got the appropriate license or is the appropriate thing that they be remanded  an informed way to ask it either so it's all ok what sets this fact situation apart is that these are in f a a regulated weapons they're in the hands of b a t f n a and not just anybody can go in and  take them whether they've got a claim against them or not they've got to be transferred in accordance with regulations and in accordance with the law i suppose that a way that they could be approached would be through a writ of a b s corpus and they could be  come under that the federal court's jurisdiction in that fashion i can tell you in direct response to your question that arkansas law is poorly equipped to deal with this because of the peculiar circumstances and my understanding of it is that i want to read of execution is served and and property is actually taken in hand the only thing the sheriff can do is sell it at the east door of the courthouse to the highest bidder and that can hardly happen with ninety three weapons of this nature again we responded in the only way we could assuming the court had jurisdiction the guns are currently under the jurisdiction of the court and in the custody of the government and we ask that this court affirm the states and that case the supreme court recognizes that there are circumstances in which a felon can possess weapons but they still have the right to own them and in those circumstances read the receive in the property back the district court has the authority to order that property sold and so the district has to do something and the only thing that it's done in this circumstance is what all three of the claimants are asking at that do you want to sell the property and i'll admit that the government is opposed to a sale but we also acknowledge that because we have not appealed that that water court not to order a sale and so what happens here then is that pretty clearly if they have no right to possess the one who's made a claim has the legal authority to possess then you've got to sell these firearms because that's what's left on the table you say yes you're right and so if the proceeds are going to go to dr piers it can only go to dr pierce because his interest in the firearms at this point is real this was not the proceedings we have an appeal or not there not appeals are criminal matters that the criminal case against dr mann in this man's been concluded yes aren't has a separate forfeiture action do you think that the hinder some case which speaks to what happens to contraband can't type material after a criminal case comes to a conclusion we think it support what the court did here even though this is not the criminal proceeding this is this is separate three separate forfeiture appeals yes i think it does control because the issue of concern is still the same because the court is left two options in this particular case it's either the defendant excuse me that the claimant can lose their cool right to own the weapons and not receive them back because a felon or the court can order that the weapons be sold and that they receive the value of those weapons back and the district here i think is an immigrant a rock and a hard place because it's left with the physical custody the weapons and he can't simply give the physical custody back to the person from whom they were seized my question is why would the court understand that that you know that's a concern out there but perhaps it's a concern of the united states but was it a concern of the court whitewash or to the court just say this probably is not subject to forfeiture  pursue other pursue other ring other remedies and then the court the united states as the possessor of these weapons can and can proceed otherwise and i  written state court issued for his arrest and his federal conviction was invalidated the federal court would have to say where that person goes if they fall to the to that writ then it's not the federal court  simply acknowledging a right that exists from another court and i think that's the same that's happened here is that a state court has issued a red for these weapons and a federal court saying i'm not forfeiting them but i'm recognizing that a different court has said that these weapons should be given to  at the end isn't this really is a case if you think about it is what you've got going down as this who's they these are firearms that were not involved in the commission of the underlying criminal of fans they not proces the underlying criminal of fans in so what they are as they are merely contraband because of the lack of licenses that are being held and so without proper license you can't own them right right now the government p your peers intervenes he basically says i have an ownership interest in the guns i acknowledge that i do not have a possessory right because of the nature of the firearms involved in this case and therefore they ought to be sold right th saw that's exactly how it's all framed up now the court says they're not subject to forfeiture on a criminal basis because they weren't involved in the in the criminal act and they're not proceeds of criminal conduct and they're only not able to be possessed by any of the people that have actually been involved here but i still have to figure out what happens to him the judge says we'll solemn and then distribute the proceeds and they make the determination that the one hundred twenty two point five million dollars judgment lena's superior to any ownership interest of any other person and mrs man has intervened saying that while she should be entitled to half of it because she's not a wrongdo and that her interest has not been forfeited right and ultimately the issues that we have to decide then is first of all was the judge within his authority to actually make the order of distribution right the sale and distribution of proceeds and second if so who gets the money that's right you are and and i would submit that our the government's position is not asking this court or affirm they were asking for the sale mainly because the government is still opposed to a sale we criminal case had to do with with the bombing yes or no right and also the these things were were these things were discovered during the course of that investigation ye the government's interest and so we submitted that there was a crime that was committed the district court found that it wasn't and i think that make a big difference that you know that the government elected to go civilly on a civil forfeiture rather than in the context of the criminal general why wouldn't it be appropriate for the court to simply say forfeiture is not warranted because the united states you have you know the end of the case and then it would be up to the united to the united states to decide what to do with this property and state law in arkansas remedies available for the disposition of of property that that cannot be legally  d by black climates in your if that's where the court comes down a that's certainly one option is that the united states makes that choice but the united states was asking to keep these weapons in its own possession in a district court found that that was not appropriate and under these circumstances i think the district or trying to figure out where the this property goes once the united states loses in this particular case and we decide knowledge that there's certainly a concern that this is trying to resolve and that it can awaits the day yesterday and well anyone with the right class three firearms license could hold these is that are these all that's correct and i believe what happened is that the weapons will stay in the physical capacity and the because you know you assumed that you were going to win the forfeiture and if you won the forfeiture you destroy these weapons right that's correct ok and by not appealing you say well will no longer have any right to destroy him but we still can't give me any body that doesn't have the right license to hold them right correct and so if the court were just to send this thing back what ends up happening somebody has to bring an action to replevin him that's appropriate under arkansas law or make some other kind of ownership interest against them in some court's going to have to figure out what happens to him but they still wouldn't go to anyone that didn't have the appropriate license and the ability to sell them right that's correct your honor and so the question a jurisdictional question is really is whether the united states district court has the act has the authority to dispose of these firearms in this action as opposed to requiring some arkansas court to do something but actually the question would be whether the prevailed that verdict can't be touched anywhere but when it comes to a verdict or dr mann prevailed well that's another thing entirely the fact is that on the ownership of the u s a s twelve calc for in the criminal case dr mann bore the burden of proof by the same quantum of proof that he would have borne it in a civil forfeiture proceeding he met that burden of proof not as plaintiveness argued from the arguments of counsel but from the evidence tendered by the plaintiffs from recordings they played thinking they would do more harm than good but that as frequently happens in the real world blew up in their face what we have here is a situation where the sixth the seventh amendments were in play and dr mann is calling on this court to enforce them when they run in his favor  and to abide by the sixth amendment guarantees the effective assistance of counsel when it comes to the failure to raise the the problem of the so called whole of the goods be reversed thank you very well the cases of letters and we will take into consideration