forfeiture actions the statute in the case law plant in favor of the government so it is incumbent upon courts to ensure that the government is hailed to meet its obligations in the statute in order to preserve the f what makes you think the only purpose of the special in iraq atari's is to determine whether the person has standing your honor in this matter is governed by the stop a little property and it is set out early at the onset of the proceedings because at the beginning the claimant knows everything about themselves of the claim but most of these actions the government knows very little about the  guy says this is my money yes so how is it i own them but if he says i have it's my money he has standing does any i would argue that he does and then the government has an opportunity to test test and the beer the special  mine and it's all drug money he can your honor he's got standing but independent of the source of the fonz well i'm not going to argue with the other because it goes to our our benefit but our position of the government's position i believe but the government wants to find out is there a legitimate source and wants to investigate the truthfulness of that right yes your honor so don't you need to respond to that before they are required to respond to the motion to dismiss i would totally agree with that your honor however there have been cases in which courts have determined for example in law versus defenders of wildlife that double state from one thousand nine to the simple statements in the pleadings can demonstrate standing and we're not arguing that that's his job he claimed to have an interest in the property due to his employment and a business ownership of a business called by the brazilians and he told them the funds were drawn from pay pal bank of america and regent bank withdrawals he stated that  the funds were delivered some of them were delivered to him in cash for services at the business he said some of the funds were delivered for him to hold as needed for the business and some of it were girlfriend gifts and investments to him from his girlfriend  he also provided many pages of financial transactions going back six years that added up to over one hundred thousand dollars and finally that documentation demonstrated that the mark the money was seized his business that are in fourteen thousand two hundred fifty dollars and so whatever the purpose your honor and i trust your judgment more than mine whatever the purpose of the special raga tours he satisfactorily answered them the court then had a hearing on that issue and in that hearing judge miller said it was obvious the to it had standing and so we argue that the issue of standing had been decided and determined by the court right but he said he had standing but he didn't answer the ira special rocks always goes back all the way to page seventy sixty five and so your honor if my client provides the government with forty some odd pages and documentation we argue that that would be sufficient when he tells them hey this is my bank account this is my pay pal address here's one hundred thousand dollars of transactions i've got a job my girlfriend has a job we all a business the business generates tens of thousand dollars sometimes per month fourteen thousand in the month you took this money i would think that sufficient your honor to meet his obligation pursuant to the rule shion to adequately plead a claim to the money is fairly low and that tops of explanation in his ownership interest insufficient all that goes to the stand and so we argue your honor that the court had determined by its words and through his order government failed to meet its burden rule twelve g two requires the government to police sufficiently detailed facts and again statutory interpretation rules require that you to hold congress take congress at its word though those three wor deficient or excuse me are critical sufficiently detail facts you have hailed that this imposes a more demanding plant pleading standard than the federal rules of procedure the government cannot merely noticed fully that was  government complaint states when it comes to tying this money to a drug transaction the positive doggle or the manner in which the currency was hidden among other factors indicate that it was drug money other factors is  is not sufficiently detailed here the record indicates thompson was traveling be a commercial plane he put the money in his checked luggage which everyone in america knows is going to be screened and so therefore supports the thought factors like a one way ticket lying about the money being in a bank account lying about the geishas use of disposable phones or being on known drug quarters of course and or in one case u s currency versus sixty three thousand five hundred thirty dollars there is also a strong odor of marijuana a book on making drugs and the claim it had lied about even having money and so you're on i'm going to reserve the remainder of my time for a revote but just before i do i want to say we all recognize that and the government would submit that undoubtedly that we did previously this court has recently this court has upheld that opinion speaking about what needs to be placed into a claimant's claim and in that opinion this court also recognize the importan court's order he made his own decision about what he was and was not required to do here the district court gave him clear direction about what to do and when mr thomson was called on the need to say why did you follow my direction mr thompson gave the district court a false response as to simply did not take up the government on that request had he done that we wouldn't be here today there's a number of things i'm assured thompson could have done to avoid being here today the first of which would have been simply answering the phone working with the government meeting and comparing to work through a discovery ris dispute before it ever becomes a court issue he also so why weren't the responses sufficient money talked about having the business pay pal accounts and that sort of thing why wasn't that enough to give you the source of the funds represent yourself and the business but you don't say which how much money belongs to yourself how much of a loss to the business later once we're going to litigation you bring in the element of your girlfriend still you don't say how many of these how much were lost each particular person opposed to the two hundred thousand and we need to know what a focus our interest to figure out what the financial analysis is so we can lay that out for the district court about whether that's true or not and so that's only one of several questions that he didn't answer and  again that question been resolved by the district court and it was for the district court to decide whether mr thomson had to answer those questions not to talk to himself and that's the function of a motion to compel the district court thought these questions were necessary the district court did not the in the discussion and it's one of those things and perhaps as an old trial judge i'd be more sympathetic to him because he's musing but in the music it does say that you know but but the burden is on you and what we don't want at all bob the burden is on the government it's not on   is a fairly extreme sanction if you look at what we do in civil cases generally before we strike somebody is claim or defense we ordinarily say oh we're going to order it as a special deposition and we're going to allow an interrogation perhaps in open court evidentiary hearing all these things can happen in discovery disputes and they do every day and i get we're you know we're under the maritime rules they're a little different but it seems to me that we just went like kind of at light speed from we don't like your answers important what he's saying what he's doing what he knows other people don't know that's the essential part of estimation at this point and it's very to give that information that obstructs our ability to to move forward in this case so there's a but the intermediate sanction would be appropriate right i mean if you just think about it yes we say that you can strike the claim but it is also possible for you to order an interrogation ask you questions and if his answers continue to be the same then just strike it back you know and i guess what i'm asking is is is is and your argument is plainly that serve the judge could have done that chose not to it was no abuse of discretion for him to do what he did initially i would say that that's really the case but it's also one that there's a lot of cases the say exactly what happened here is is appropriate but that just because something is appropriate doesn't mean it's the only response right i mean and that's one of the problems that we get into all the time is trial judges some will say well the court says it's the abuse of discretion to do x that doesn't mean why it's wrong it means that x is not wrong you still have as a trial judge broad discretion to handle the case in a number of different ways and i think that you know where i'm on just a little bit on up and i'm not sure that how much is that we have this kind of statement that shifts the burden of proof we have this kind of statements that say like my hands are kind of tight i don't like this but this is where we're at the s out the answer to any iraq story right and so we should we be at all concerned about that process and i know your answer is no i'm just still turning it over my brain and you're not agree that the answer is no to that question because this is not the case where answer this question about how much of this money are you claim you know how much are you claiming for the business and how much are you claiming for your girlfriend if you ask acting on her behalf and mr johnson's response was that he couldn't do it and the government the government pushed him say that all we're asking for asked about why you didn't do what i told you to do he told us most something that simply was not true and to this day has not corrected that even in his appeal he says that the government was hiding my documents we want we made them available we tried to find these more combinations to move on from this sufficient in previous cases after a trial and so we're the same before the trial we have enough evidence to show that we can we can get to a trial jurors would ask that in this case that this court vindicate the the authority of the district court ensure that said the government had the documents and he did have access to them himself the fact that the government had six hundred gigabytes of data the government had had seized documents from two businesses and from the home itself would alleviate the issue that the government can move forward with the government essentially saying that there we have anough information to for thomson to state this claim however we're at a disadvantage of information in addition to that thomson did risk did the government make them that think you just said yes yes but the government said that we have the documents that the irony of that is that well not just we have we'll make them available to you so you can answer the and so we get to the partners of the special interop authorities and they are by the case law and by the law they are limited to the issue of standing and us the one hundred thirty three thousand four hundred twenty dollars in u s currency money and so interactive tours are to get at that perspective where it where it does understand that the person is at least alleging and the cases actually say that i have to do is make an allegation of where the money came from you don't have to prove it stood or the forfeiture stood where there was so little information where they were so so the statements were so slight by the government and where the information that the government had was so massive this is the only case where the government had six hundred gigabytes of data that they specifically went to the businesses and went to his house so they knew where they were and took that information then mr thompson provided pages and pages and pages they show over one hundred thousand dollars that came from the front from