members of the court friday ms berry broke and i represent roy david in jail and like with the court's permission i would ask reserve five minutes apart and every justice for i consider the government's conduct in this case the government provided notice that it was confiscating these coins and that it would not be going to court so that it was doing it not judicially there's no dispute that the languorous filed a notice of claim to both the u s treasury ignore the law knowing the risk that the penalty that congress impose would apply and forever bar them from seeking for her through these points and despite the fact that the three federal agencies that were consulted who actually had thrown her to expertise told them they had a file for her to complain nevertheless they did not and i submit that these truly are not disputed propositions so notwithstanding some issues that have been raised about the technical interpretation of africa they really don't impact this case half a dozen apply has been a moving target in this case they first argued that the language is wrong terribly surrendered the core and then relinquish all their rights to the coins which wasn't so they then claimed it because they believe the going were stolen they could engage in self help and in a footnote in their papers and claiming that even if they did not judicially confiscate his property their actions could be used because it was on offer and therefore they should not i'd have to face the consequences intended for such actions now first that issue was the government's argument about the five hundred thousand dollar threshold doesn't even apply because that threshold doesn't apply to the sixteen zero seven eight two and a four provisions that allow for administrative forfeiture of warnings or for property to government alleg stolen and therefore can't be imported neither affected go to the government raise arguments about those provisions in a footnote or otherwise turning to the declaratory judgment if i may the government says that they if they don't have the ability to i'm sorry i must prove that they were stolen and it has title they must prove it and congress intended to have to say when the government says i want to administrative we forfeit it in other words keep popping up judicially a claim that has the right to say we can't rely just on the government's view because question that what the government affected here was a seizure and took the position that they did not need to file were pursued mistreated for future and expressly said that they did not intend to do so correct respond is only a number response of the first as in this case i would say that it doesn't matter because what the government did is they sent a letter that clearly said their intent was to confiscate the property and they were not ever going to go to court they' also made clear that their intent is not to pursue an administrator for future pursuing the right they say with doing they believe not to be a forfeiture because they have the right to do this and you actually had remedies into i mean you don't have to sit on your prevailed with respect to several good causes of action and were given the money if i may we didn't have rule criminal forty one because it wasn't a criminal case so that would apply and one could write why does it have to be a criminal case rule forty one doesn't talk in terms of just criminal cases you can file a rule forty one motion before the indictment well we could but i believe the government says when they have these they incivility and claim they're not doing it for any other purpose they've objected to that but i agreed on it it could have done that but the whole point of kaffir if i make is that a person when the government seizes their property which clearly happened has some revenue so that they can have the government not abuse its power and in this case we get there either one of two ways because the government gave notice that they were confiscating it they were doing dodgy actually casella which is the expert right on by both sides says that the notice doesn't have to take any different form and they clearly said separately from all the other cases cited by the government that they're just claiming a file line and that was done here with every think of the notice now getting back to the situation where you have the betterment clearly can abandon property we agree to that when there is it when there is a clear theft where the government has a lot of options the only time and in this case there is no question this was out of government and for at least seventy years the language or similar students secretely course the u s s constitution when we can't find it for twenty years and we give it to their children and then the set you keep saying in administrative work the truth that's assuming the answer to the question that we're trying to get you to get to the question is not whether you know everything that the government does is that it miss my guess it is a question your position seems to be everything the government does if it takes something is it administrative curvature and they keep saying it's not a for future we are entitled to in the district court agreed with us to to do what is in effect well a quiet title action there's some question about the ownership of this property you know when we would and and ultimately that was resolved through the declaratory judgment action what is what is the flaw in the district court's reasoning we had that shit you know one hundred years ago and they file a seized asset claim saying it's it's our it's the state of virginia proper it isn't isn't that the distinguishing feature here that once you once that that absolutely judge the issue that we have here is a very good for an issue by the government it is not a situation where the government is wholly property for some other reason the government has specifically said it in ninety three  intended to give a person a right when the government says we're not going to follow the codes or judge again we're not going to follow repugnant we're just going to keep it divided the government waited four years roger before they did any thing only because they wanted to play you know they wanted to try work and do something and i would submit if you look at the plain language of the statute there is no argument i would submit is the right is does it apply in these circumstances where the language is clearly claimed property where the government took it and confiscated against their wishes where they said they're not going to go to court refuse ten year litigation the language were forced to back up for years just to get into court because the government claimed there was no right to go into court and what what half intended to address was the vast spirally in power itself required required them to come into court and they you think it's too harsh for gravity to say that because the government in this new deadline they can't claim their own property more than missing a deadline it's missing a deadline that congress specifically says you miss it at your own risk that she won't be able see for for the clearly the language also in this case the judge found that the government did not engage in that region strategic decision making i made other findings about their conduct that was anything but good faith also of legislative history makes clear that good faith refers to when you're investigating a criminal case you're making decisions about how the property make may not be used but can i can i get back to this situation because again i think the purpose of cafe is intended to make sure the government can't unilaterally exercise forfeiture regime that it's not enough for the government itself to say the government can seize property and keep it a little timidly happened here not only have to but that is only because in this case the language had the fortitude for the ten year battle but the idea with a value that has nothing at all to do with its face value so that's the situation we have here and that well and in fact if you had a nine hundred thirty three eagle or any number of viable coins that sell for millions of dollars were currency at some point they would be both they would they would they were clearly about half are applying to for future situations and in a sense discussing what is nontraditional for future as in any seizure sort of becomes a defacto non judicial for future but seizure here we have the government saying they were doing it not judicially they said disclaim going to court which is very different in every situation the government's running they said they're going to court and what and here we have two things the five hundred thousand dollar limit does not apply to certain things  into but just stepping back to the big picture isn't it the case that congress anticipated by excluding property over five hundred thousand dollars from the death penalty of  dollars limit but even here i would say the government again by executing a non traditional confiscation that's what they did they're trying to get out of the consequences of it by arguing that if they did it they did it without authority because what makes this case person did you ever answer the question of whether or not he's going to constitute legal tender well as it is i didn't believe there were protests here when i started to say judges for twenty years we've been arguing about what it means to issue a coin really there is one but it's a greece's issue and for example if there was a goal for goal exchange happen that the men in the middle and headed out didn't send it to the reserve would that be issued if they issued a license as they did to another thirty three double eagle does that make it legal tender and i think that this case is only about one thing it's about an extraordinary and inappropriate abuse of government power and that's what you say when your father and grandfather still going from the u s mint them for eighty years kept them in a safe deposit box concealed them from the government and then they came to the light of day after another one of these points on it by the same person so for some of the half million dollars you say it's all about the government use of power but what did the government  process the government made a mistake that's a quote extraordinary and inappropriate use of power and we took on medicine the judge gave a remedy for that exactly the remedy that the language asked for which was have the government file the complaint have the government bear the burden of proof and so we did and after that the rest of this is smoke and mirrors they obtain a remedy that they want what i want to talk about first is the clarity judgment because that's the easy way to resolve the penalty is you can't go and get seller forfeiture it is not foreclose any other remedy and certainly not the remedy that every property owner in the world not just the united states has which is to file an action to recover its own fit together that showed not a single one of these coins roughly left the united states meant the declaratory judgment should be a fun and we don't need to get into these twenty issues of forfeiture but i'm happy to do that because the fact of the matter is this is not a non judicial forfeiture to which kaffir applies a claimant cannot show up where the government has seized property for the many reasons it seizes property whether in a criminal case or customs matter a claimant can show up and say here's actually i have just created a nontraditional civil forfeiture subject to cafe and that's what they did they say we sent a letter saying we're not going to court and therefore it's quote non judicial this is a letter sent by an on a very very minor point but it just strikes me that indication of the term self help we just seems to place the government on the same footing as a citizen isn't quite an accurate way of describing what a huge government does that but setting that aside i mean isn't your argument really or isn't your characterisation on the other side's argument it would be seen to be suggesting is some exclusivity sixt iture is allowed is from section ninety three which incorporates section one hundred fifty six for specified on lawful activity when you rock through the chain you find about two hundred statutes including six forty one for which forfeiture  eagles and sold them and received fifty million dollars we can't prove that that fifty million dollars will have title to that can't do anything else you lose any other remedy you might have under the law and that we the answer is in ninety three with there's no the only thing you get by violating cafe is you lose civil forfeiture then you render if you say and you did honor which is that it's the difference between the government acting as law enforcer and acting in a second manner as property owner as we said in a hypothetical in the bank the titian any other property owner in the world if the government misses a forfeiture deadline with regard to any of these two hundred types of fourth of the property can file an action against the thief to get their property back there congress must cause attention though that the u s government is not in any of the property owner in the world that the congress regulates regularly what the government is and isn't permitted to do and it said very specifically here's how you get property back and it listed the things out and it said indecent timeframes you have to follow in order to do what you want to answer the question to say while we're just like any other citizen because you're not are you know down to let me answer that i know we are not like any other citizen and that actually plays in our favor in this matter because there are there are many jurisprudential doctorates it's favor of the government when it comes to its own property the u s supreme court over many times over many decades has said exactly what your honor does the government is no ordinary actor it holds a vast amount of property which in issues about self help as strange or a little tough to swallow because the government is supposed to be behaving in a better manner and then one could argue as your opponents resolution we have not for just need it but they have other parts of these answers if i may get to them first wrong with regard to the power of the government the supreme court has said statutes of limitations are construed strictly against somebody of a certain them for the government if the government felt confident where they were sufficient evidence in the government's view that the offensive taking place that all that property out there could just be taken and put capper to the side because title was already in then in the united states it has title vesting at the time of the offensive belongs to the united states it does but if i sit here today and file a fourth attraction i have no title at this moment if i get a judgment yes my title then reverts back to the time of the offense back to prove my  a quick question b which was which really is the starting point and and that would be is there some kind of connection between eighty three sixteen and eight o five and i so you would agree this court something because he perceived you had violated due process right you know we are is that your only safe ground that correct we're not challenging that further to get we now have this ruling which we're abiding by that the government must give process and we did but there is no provision in the law that we may be ultimately that this was back from the trial we discussed a little bit adventurous issues that have been raised and can be ended may be if we do get to the question of whether or not a trial should be considered reconsidering errors and argument judge's opinion read everything you'll see it's not based on the so called hearsay it's based on evidence of in fact really is not yours and has not been challenged the records of the men show to the last coolly but not one of them is wrongfully l government always has the option and that's another problem here in applying caffeine kaffir says that if it's a nontraditional proceeding and the government doesn't give notice this isn't a one f or something and the government doesn't give notice the government has to give the property hypothetical maybe there's a bag of open coin sitting in the cashier's office maybe there was a two week window where they could be about something happening now there was a hypothetical jury flatly rejected it based on overwhelming evidence including the most explanation is there on the record as to how this all fiction house now in us and take place every antique that this this the government has waived the argument as to these being money terri instruments and not property where you would agree that they could pursue these other remedies well we we have said even assuming that