weighs the rights of individual citizens and entities against that of the united states government in a civil forfeiture case that is unrelated or there is no related criminal action matter investigation or complaint within matter there was not as much as a traffic summons issued to anybody any of the parties for far too long the imbalance was tipped far in favor of the government in these types of cases to the detriment of its citizens to take on the government to home invoke their constitutional rights and that this initial imbalance was not created by statute it was not created by the legislature or any legislative action there were some court opinions that expand the rule g five opinions that that burden has now or that imbalance has now been shifted or attempted to correct i'm pleased to say that yesterday to look at ok i will i'd like to point out that this case is right on point it's exactly this case before your honor well did the plaintiff there or the  the claimant there submitted a document that said only yes a claim of ownership without any more specificity the and it talked about the  all that i would make it right on if the claimant said i claim ownership and didn't say anything more yes and in this case i think that's what this one's right out and like your honor said earlier if this it's not binding but if the second circuit decided the case already and what about our case that seemed to decide this already this is actually hundred fifty four thousand dollar case which is actually talked about in the six circuit opinion but when they when you submit a and i'll read it because they the court can express it better than may this case comes to us in a procedural posture on like most civil forfeiture actions the government apparently moved to dismiss the claim before didn't gauged in any discovery just like the government did in this case its basic argument before the district court on appeal is that the claimants pleadings do must do more than assert a bear ownership  rez that is the subject of the forfeiture that claim its pleadings must provide the government sufficient detail to draft interactive tori's allowing it to test the claimants claim of ownership so the court  that's what he claimed as his ownership interest if you look specifically at his wording of his claim and i and i addressed that in the response brief he doesn't do what ellen g did in this case where they were in iraq the tories in marcus's case right there was but he but the point i'm trying to make is that he was not saying he was the owner in the claim because and and his first claim well it said claimant has an ownership interest in the currency more or less the previous  claims this amount more laughs and then its rights claimant has an ownership interest in the currency in the courts of that's not enough but the amended when he amended he said i have an ownership interest in forty five hundred because more information but still as to what he and the other case and our one fifty four case right here as to what he owned he gave details correct and he returned and the government submitted and agreed and the court agreed and they gave him back his forty five hundred but that isn't at the point here there are those details are lacking the claim is more specific because he his claims and ownership and possessory interest not a n n which does not exclude him to everyone everybody else in the world to the ownership of this money l and g was unequivocal and said this is our money to the exclusion of everybody else in their ownership there of your position is that end that one fifty four case he had to give additional facts because of the initial way he described his interests correct but your position if i don't want to put words in your mouth but if i understand you if you just say it's mine i own it rights all you need that's all you need for standing for the initial because the case is against a pile of money and in order to get in the case and and  an answer you have to put a claim in an unequivocal claim of ownership or detail your possessory interest before you can file your answer and then conduct discovery so what happened in our case we did that and then we were supplied seventeen into raga tories and we answered seven tori's then we answered them again and then we answered them for the third time and then the motion was made to exclude or knock out our regional claim if the rules contemplated that why on earth would we have supplemental interactive tours the supplemental once they do that and they send them then they're stuck with them like the claim was amended i wish i had that i wish i had all i could say that they were it was submitted to the court in their motion and their motion was two fold because they were trying to knock out some of the answers and knock out my claim or my client's claim and we defended on both grounds and it looked to fly a i have to concede i have to submit to the court that i do not believe based on the the lower court's opinion that the court ever considered the second paragraph in our claim on the for the first chance that's the first paragraph that's that first paragraph was cited in the government's brief and ironically enough that's what was quoted verbatim in the lower court's opinion the second paragraph is where the specificity comes the interest of the claimant in the defendant in ram by virtue of which claim it demands its restitution it return and the right to defend the action is all of the right title and interest in said defendant in rand as the owner there of i don't think the court considered that second part because it's it's not mentioned in the opinion it looks like it was taken as quote from the government's brief and there is a third paragraph to that within claim is not frivolous were made for the purpose of the leg it is also made under the purview of probe of perjury that which is all that g five requires again mike my my point is you have g six to ask for more specific questions if if you had to put all that information in your plane then why have to answer in toronto tours in the first place to interact tours are only so the government can when the government pick and choose which they work from i don't have or and all of the critical rules i believe that they're stuck with those answers once they chose to submit especially to rog it was at least in terms of fairness to a li where you are asked about your standing and you answer seventeen questions and then you answer them again and again for the government you would think that the government can say well i'm not interested in those i'm red herring when it comes to the standing i think it has absolutely nothing to do with the ownership and i think it's the government's way of trying to knock out the claim and not take on their burden there is a case there is  cited in our in our brief and in a pot i apologize it's been the case is with all of the numbers the currency is hard to keep track of they're not by names or by numbers a claim that was made just an ownership claim there was money in a backpack or there was money wrapped up they took the gentleman austin's deposition and in that deposition and i quote austin repeatedly claim that he was the owner of the currency seized but in response to specific questions about the cash he invoked his fifth amendment privilege against self incrimination specifically he refused to describe the source of the currency explain why it was packaged in plastic and for oil and reveal why he was current such a large amount of cash he also failed to disclose anything about his income his source of employment and his previous residence in terms of standing because that's what the motion was made it was determined that it's irrelevant it's goes to credibility and maybe on the trial on the on its merits but it does not go to standing all we're asking for is this court is to give us a fair shot to conduct discovery the last thing i want to say so even in the even in the government's brief we didn't have the information that they had in their footnote they said oh yeah ellen g those two drivers did say they were l n g employees oh by the way we have a picture of the truck that says ellen jesus name on it where the money was found and we have a police report that says the truck is owned by ellen g all of these things i would have got into if i had even a little bit of the scullery if i would have gotten at least answers to interactive tours from the government but we have nothing i submit  part precedent in the one hundred fifty four thousand dollar case in that case we were dealing with was a claim that was insufficiently specific it was the very first claim that che marcus filed in that case where he said that he was an owner of the money that was involved in that particular let me interrupt because that's what i thought at first too but you have a derogatory yes and you would agree that if they'd put this one paragraph from the iraq authorities in there and you know what i'm referring to if they put that in there about the money and where the money came from and all that if they put that original claim they'd have standing right yes or no way they'll be correct but ok or why is it that when we really are now should we treat in a raga tori's amending the quite know your own and the reason for that is because of the standard in which th decided this particular case was decided is a motion for judgment on the pleadings and under that particular standard you only can look at the at the particular pleading that you're evaluating its sufficiency and here you also can bring in the complaint and also the answer discovery responses the united states would have a chance to rebut elegies evidence with death deposition testimony and an additional discovery that would make a ducted throughout the case but either before the district court in its briefs nor an oral argument today responses to discovery saying that they believe they're basically walking our way to investigate their claim and because of that it's beautiful to allow them to mend their claim to two alleged facts so we can further investigate but in the alternative we asked that the district court granted  filed of smith that's what the district court as we wanted the motion to strike that the court granted before the court rules it grants the motion to strike what did strike it struck elegies claim in its answer to that to the complaint now wait are you sure because i don't want e c f number seven is hardly can you tell me i'm on page six of the judge's order then she strikes their ownership claim i think she's striking something else in the e c f seven but tell me if i'm wrong you but you also moved describe answers to the discovery requests as an alternative really if your honor when you say that you mean you move to strike the inner i got tory answers for a a motion to strike you can be considered under two different standards the discover responses that are there but also the district court would have the discretion to allow them to move to amend their complaint at those facts and there and again much like the summary judgment standard elegy has never made a request to amend its its claim those additional facts and those are simple things they'll and she could do to bring those facts into this particular standard and it's not done that and when in it did i hear you answer to benson's question that you believe that if the information in the argument they filed the pleading akali that was you say insufficient they filed in iraq a tory that had sufficient information and then you went back and challenge the initial pleading and said that was judgment for completing standard is insufficient and the discovery request if they had moved him into at those and it may make it more sufficient but they were going to discovery and we can move for summary judgment at that point the fifth minute becomes an issue because of to amend and so once it does that i think it stuck with the record that's below because this court is reviewing what happened below and all parties agreed at the district court this case should be a judgment on the pleadings and so now you have to bring in additional documents it's in that one fifty four case and your obvious read that that goes back to the purpose of the claim itself and it's meant to discourage the following a false claims and it's were crying a person to follow a claim that just sufficiently specific to put them in danger of perjury if it's a false claim and the specificity requirement is not a high burden it's not asking for them to explain the bank records where this came from it's asking for simple phrases about this money came from x and they didn't do that it's a it's a fairly low bar but it's still a and so the one thing that they're requiring some specificity does is that it is stop these cases from getting mired down in the very early stages of litigation because all the parties understand what the requirements are  i that's my car i own that car would the government be saying you have to pay more in order to even get standing for that and your honor i would submit that in that particular case the government revival no you're not or do you use a point it's you well i'll give you one minute because i want to ask you a question why didn't you amend your claim in light of the answers to the inner i get towards a seems like that would have avoided this i was following the rule g five judge and then once and what do you mean you're following the rule g five says verbatim identify yourself identify the money for what we have this case we have this hundred fifty and when i was a narky i thought that when i got all the interactive tours and we supplied i thought we were fighting over the fifth amendment and the striking of the the answer the answer yeah they had all these other i couldn't run out then you got a motion for judgment on the pleadings i did and that you're back to the claim and then to strike also might put put the answers to interview to his were submitted to the court and then i got my opposition out and just in terms of timing the motion was filed on six twenty two of two thousand and sixteen i filed my response on july eleventh july twenty first i got the written opinion no oral argument no home and when i was reading he was following exactly what i thought the law was until at the very end who said you'll have five requires this and and then you didn't the opinion did quote my second paragraph in my in my complaint and then and then i immediately filed the motion for the the appeal but right before that the clerk entered the government at their default because nobody else filed an answer on the money and the motion for