not to exceed fifteen governmental power the evidence in the record shows that three undercover operatives went into doctor's eighty's practice with the intent to deceive him about being in pain subject they commenced on september the eleventh of two thousand and twelve and over the period of nine months made sixteen visits they paid two thousand one hundred and thirty five dollars in cash that represents the proceeds of specified unlawful activity on the strength of all this is doing right it's an undercover operation yes yes your honor and but on the strength of two thousand one hundred and thirty five dollars fourteen business accounts retirement accounts personal savings and checking accounts and hundred thirty nine pieces a personal jury of mrs eighty representing her loom jory the value of which was just under jury and the bulk of the financial hounds too were pain management of northern ohio business accounts the first marriage accounting which is very important here because the evidence in the record demonstrates that the two thousand one hundred thirty five dollars went into the first american business account of the a man oh it was a second account that pm and hoyer typically for transfers in for payment from insurance companies and medicare and medicaid all the other accounts were personal counsel dr mrs lady including retirement accounts that represent a lifetime of accumulated assets well you can have cut your clients are  to litigate the cat but they need to be present to do so well your honor that's another major issue here i don't think they need to be present at a case management conference i don't see i didn't see any fourteen after he had attended the administrative hearing in district court in cleveland for two days on a long planned vacation while he was visiting his family in pakistan he took ill and now by that time mrs id and the children had returned to cleveland they were back in school and she then took the children out of school went back to pakistan to be with her husband he had a heart attack in two thousand and seven  and he took ill had complications he's remained in pakistan now the government very early on in the case began raising the fugitive dissent on that statute saying that that statute should been charged with an offense and could not be extradited and because of that congress passed the fugitive disentanglement statute in the year two thousand and the statute provides in and when the government first raised did they raised it even before they had decided to take the case to a grand jury against arkansas eighty one and of course mrs ideas not been charged with anything so the statute does not apply to her but the but the but but the statute provides that if an individual is advised that they've been charged and of those who want for the arrest and either they leave the country or they refused to enter in order to avoid prosecution and of course doctors and he had been out of the country for a number of months even actually even before the civil in rome action was filed but he was out of the country for seven or eight months before the government elected to go to the grand jury and get an indictment and so we put on evidence of his health condition a heart attack in two thousand and seven from hillcrest hospital clean and a doctor in and a letter that was not  d your honor it's totally undisputed we thought a motion for part of dr said he couldn't fire something like that well while he had a he had a letter from a doctor in pakistan who he was able to see even though he has no that undermines the credibility of his kline or not says he wasn't in the needy represented he was ian or i just out quite know what to make of that but i mean that did happen well your honor but but at the same time if you look at this record though you will see that when when claimants filed a motion to transfer assets to pay lawful taxes in this record it shows that they paid they paid their taxes every year we put in declarations from their tax accountant to that effect not to release it to claimants but to transfer it from one governmental pocket to the other the government opposed it cited the statute and says under the hardship provision of the statute the climate's are not entitled to get to receive any of this money the district court agreed with them and frankly said that there's nothing in the statute which would allow the release to the claimants but we had not we had not asked for that we had asked for the transfer and now having won that issue not directly to their pocket but it's to their benefit it would be to their benefit but but it's their money i mean at the end of the day it had not been forfeited it had been seized and in on this record we've established that the two thousand one hundred thirty five dollars was all deposited into one business account there is no evidence in the record which is the controlling decision in this circuit which we followed in we briefed in the course of all the united states attorney's office in cleveland litigated that case they know what salty is they know what's all the holes and in that case there was a gentleman in jordan he had been ill he had a letter from a doctor and the court below had said that the government had proven that  head refused to enter the country in order to avoid prosecution in this court said no that's that's not the case because there's no medical reasons which you know in the record indicating why this gentleman can't travel back  salty is like this case your honor it's both the civil and criminal whether this case is not of a criminal case this case is a civil case and your clients are in the position of plaintiffs in but the government has the burden by preponderance to demonstrate that the assets are for federal and they have to show that doesn't mean your clients wouldn't have an obligation to appear required by the district court to do so well circumstances when you are absenting yourself from the court for whatever reason valid or invalid it was inappropriate to proceed on that and inappropriate as well to require the government to just f you every bit of evidence it had in support of both this case and the criminal case when you had not appeared oh you're one of the government could have moved to state a civil case they made the strategic decision not to do that they decided to go forward with the civil case now if and whatever reason the district court wanted it off its docket well well it's clear that the district court did the government's job formed by ruling on will forty one actually when you look at the court's order denying the claimants motion for partial summary judgment you will see that the court doesn't address will fifty six doesn't address the rule fifty six standard doesn't even mention all fifty six  filed the court has to address it in fact the rule says the court shall grant summary judgment when the evidence justifies it now the government was then under the responsibility to come forward to show that there are genuine issues if many had started arguing that they didn't we didn't meet the requirements of the future it doesn't i don't statute and the court as is is this court's where the district court ruled that that's an applicable or irrelevant to these proceedings because i'm not local rules in the northern district of ohio the discovery is not to commence formal discovery doesn't even commence until there's a successful case management conference and you have a success could you have a case management conference in a civil case without one of the in this case the district court immediately did grant the claimant's first request at the initial two thousand and fourteen schedule c m c the court did grant that we filed a brief afterwards for  consideration pointing out the fact that the government had learned that there's eighty's it picked up taking the kids out of school and left and we were concerned that in light of the criminal proceedings that we're  be certainly you know a general matter the plaintiffs are claimant in this case has to comply with the court's requirements about the parties personal presence on the other hand this particular case it doesn't really look like anything's happened in the civil litigation other than perhaps  would require their presence except perhaps that and so i mean arguably the district court and being insistent on their personal presence was doing a bit of the government's work in attempting to obtain their presence back in the united states what do you say about that view of the k s where you are i think it's back to the point i would have originally made if i hadn't been asked a question and then  from the inception of this case at least from the time the first case management conference was scheduled back in two thousand and fourteen there were two things that were abundantly clear to claimants council into the united states council and that was that the district court took the position from the very first pretrial that we had not delaying the cme see that number one it was not going to allow the claimants in this case to litigate the merits of their claims from outside of the united  a burden on the party to act in good faith that the court could dismiss a case against somebody say of california who was sued by the government and said his lawyer to th conference it is in that my experience based on the facts that were before the district court that were being raised all the status conferences this is a more than a year effort by the district court to get some indication that either arum or the situation with criminal sanctions pending and at the foreign country distinguishes this from california is that we're trying to get to all i'm trying to say that whether or not we had the future of disentanglement statute as a potential remedy down the line the remedy that was here was that the government expressed from its an initial briefing in this case that it was concerned that it was going to being ph in producing all kinds of early and broader discovery than was entitle to that doctor's eighty was entailed to see under the criminal proceedings if the indictment originally had not even been filed at them point triggered by the fact that when we've seize property and we seize property in there we're still receive your warrants it was probable cause determination in this case that you know based on some notice that was given to us that we have ninety days from that notice to either file an indictment and or file a civil complaint so in this case the criminal indictment was not yet ready to be presented so the united states  so and there's two concerns one the government's concerned about having to provide discovery in a broader context a civil context than he would be internal to on a criminal and to from from the the person is potentially facing criminal sanction that based on the fifth amendment right that he not be compelled to engage in discovery until the criminal case was resolved if this matter had proceeded if zaidi had been present in the country it would have proceeded first under the under the criminal case most likely and i believe the court would have stated and when both parties initially agreed to a stay of proceedings pending the filing indictment because we realize that there were issues that weren't going to be able to be resolved but what the court needs to look at is the repeated efforts by the district court to get them to comply most importantly we had serious concerns about and we had information that we had not yet shared and discovery because there hadn't been discovery and as we expressed those concerns that we wanted to depose her especially as to whether she had standing or true ownership interest in the assets that had been scenes that were in her name or in her purse and her husband's name we were basically told by the court that dead even is going to require that iran's eighty had to come back she was an under criminal sanction we we identified that she was not the target of any investigation we simply needed to get through there said she could come back because there's a hardship or something like that yes she she responded that she couldn't come back because the travel advisory said that no one should go to the airport but  to allow her to have time to come back the other thing that she said which was a complete misrepresentation was it that her husband was so ill that she was the sole caregiver the government pointed out that that you know that she couldn't be the sole caregiver because their whole claim was that they were living with extended family in pakistan and you know that there were other people to protect but you know that what's important here when a court church rises or is having strong want to court in its leader or dismissing what's important here is that she misrepresented the situation when the court had mr zaidi on the phone and actually had him making representations we found out that he's on  he has aspirin and beta blockers he didn't have anything that required that he couldn't function or take care of his children or anything of that sort so her representations were directly opposed to his l representations that he may need some surgery but he needed to get an angiogram or a test that's when the court offered the extraordinary i would say a gracious remedy that he turned to us as he as he's telling us and he said the government will release whatever funds the court orders to pay for whatever medical treatment mr zaidi feels he needs and without requiring that he come back to the united states to get there so he was free to get in pakistan he was free to travel to europe  time and said that the he would allow a petition by the claimant indicating that he needed release of funds to get whatever testing and or subsequent treatment that would enable him to be able to freely travel back to the united states and so on so the court basically took a humanitarian approach to this and again directed at us and suggested that he didn't expect the government to to object to that tape or release what was in that step  little long take advantage of the court's offer to release whatever funds were necessary for him to get the type of medical treatment and we soon to this is not a situation where the this is an ignorant individuals far as knowing what the medical condition is this is a practicing physician was a practicing physician and it would certainly be in a good position to know what taper treatment he needed and what was necessary so the court at every some juncture attempted to free up any impediments to their ability to travel and you know in response to one of your earlier questions please note that the court gave aram's eighty a number of chances and instead of coming back after the six weeks four days before four days before we were supposed to have the conference at which we were directed to the poser and we were limited to only a day and a half of deposition all to accommodate her her schedule so that she get right back to her family have is that telephone that was moved from january date to the february date each time you know the core tried to give her an opportunity to make travel arrangements understanding she was coming from pakistan and not from california or indiana to to appear  and you know the court was basically saying she has to engage in some sort of discovery and if not there's going to be this adverse inference is going to be drawn from leave of course the courts where that she attempted to a sort of blanket government would suggest to the court is in my final comment is that whether we had seventeen months of the court gave or seventeen years it's pretty clear from the record from the tape of trying to make his behavior that was in gauging by  that there was never going to be an intent that these people were going to come back so it would be an absurd result to suggest that the court couldn't at some point dismiss the case for want a prosecution and that's what the court did in only after point several couple months in advance it will have to curb by june eighth two thousand and fifteen all thank you  we demonstrated in this record demonstrates the medical a letter from a medical doctor in pakistan brief it here for us oh yes free yes it's it's here you're able to find demonstrated that there were medical reasons why he had not returned to the united states and that the god that had not challenge in this court i thought you said that he was that this well well in this court in the salt in the in th pakistan of course he's there without any medical without any medical coverage or any way to get treatment but a medical doctor we put up we put of evidence well i mean a heart complication but there are different kinds of heart complications well he had he had a heart attack in two thousand and i think it was two thousand and seven and we put evidence in the record that was before in the record but yes it was that he was having heart he had heart complications secondary to his heart attack and that he was advised against any travel because of the you know it's all it's all in the record and