government might have believed that it was a one thousand three hundred and forty nine they in actuality presented to the grand jury and the grand jury returned as we seventy one and so our position is  defend themselves against and it seems like you have the notice from the labeling of the indictment with the crimes that the man was convicted of what am i missing here well the notices it had the notices is the specific language and elements alleged in the in the count one of the indictment and that is alleged a conspiracy against the united states and it included the over right that is true and that's why we're under a plane air that's status but it's pretty clear from united states supreme court precedent that  weighing under the forfeiture of two million fifteen thousand and then always though i should make it clear what i'm really asking about is not what judge wright's view was or whether his view d evolved what i'm asking for is authority that you have that would capture the authority to government has presented that honey tut is dependent on the language of the statute and does not apply to all four for two are cases empower the government to confiscate property derived from are used to facilitate criminal activity actually serve important government interest as separating a criminal from an ill gotten gain returning property and all said and in applying the facts there they were dealing with a married couple and that there was absolutely no evidence that the married couple mr m thousand five hundred dollars mr thompson was ordered to pay the full amount that being the two million fifteen thousand dollars and mr next than thirty focus here was ordered to pay zero for four  two defendants the money comes into a joint account to both of them control and then the money goes out again but if there was a point in which the money came to both of  the th circuit in our situation and we are vastly different these individuals were acting somewhat in concert but they were not holding account all three of them sorry are you waiting for me to give you the go ahead when you're ready counsel yes sure please the court just if they're going to be awfully nice states albeit briefly addressing the court's questions regarding the constructive amendment i think judge kleinfeld question hits the nail right on the  recognize that the conspiracy charge of one thousand three hundred and forty nine lets the court has any additional questions on the constructive amendment issue i'll turn the remainder of my argument over my co counsel all right thank you to leto because it was a striking case that held the innocence is no defense in that case you'll recall the owner of the yacht we stood to some people who used to prove do reason it's is that the supreme court explained that forfeiture is not like a fly it's not like a penalty it's not like restitution it's the  property right krantz for years at the moment of the commission of the criminal act from whoever used to be the owner to the government so the tainted property as they call it is the government's  itself and you've got calero to lido saying that innocence is no defense for that reason it's just against the dirty property that's been thirty by the crime and you've got honey proceeding on the same basis i don't understand how the forfeiture can proceed against people which is what joint and several liability does as opposed to against the dirty money well if you're asking about the long standing tradition of and forfeiture money judgments in our briefing we did discuss you know i'm not asking why i'm  not asking that i'm asking why the reasoning of honey cut would not have to apply more broadly all forfeitures rather than being limited to eight take individual eyes of the city findings about what amount each person obtained not through their participation in a fraud just pleasure reference money caught in the drug conspiracy was a very clean case where one person got everything and one person got nothing on campus and what i'm thinking is he may be analogous to thompson because when he sells let's say it's marijuana i don't remember what it was when he sells the marijuana  the purchaser he's him the full price of the marijuana so he has the money in his hands but he turns the money over to d is wholesaler who just pays him a salary of three hundred dollars a month and it was three hundred so for the prime between when he sold the marijuana to another student and the time that he turned it over to his wholesaler he did in fact hold and control physically the money might be taking an unreasonable risk if he didn't turn it over to his wholesaler but nevertheless during that time period he owner control  and i don't see what the differences between that and a criminal who holds an controls the money before the split well i think the hypothetical in know honey cut not entirely sure how they thought the money was being controlled but i know in the facts of this case the money was being directed it working in concert to cohen the money they were jointly earning the money the money was going large chunks of the money not all th money which we concede but large chunks of the money were going to bank accounts held in escrow by attorneys that were retained are controlled by thomson fancher at times together at times it was just thomson and times it was just venture and that money w going into their own either directed by them into their own entities into their own personal bank accounts or did other pay off other guys i would note that for a picture they didn't contest up to four hundred and seventy one thousand dollars of that money charge and it was reflection of here is about a person exceed it and if the defendants need a remedy for some reason we're collect more than a total fraud proceeds there's a rule for your motion available to them for the return of property which i gree with control is in the end the end the route to that money isn't necessarily the calculus it's it's the the defrauding the victim in obtaining that tainted fraud prophesied so if if your act if you're a criminal who's a painting stealing money from somebody and i think that that's where any kind of set you have to make an individualized fact specific finding as to how much each person attained because the fifty three dollars uses the word person obtained and i think district court in this case did that sort of individualized