that's something that we mentioned not brief i don't think that it's ever been considered i don't think that the the idea that there was a conversion has been considered in any of the b cases that i've read where that was focused on and i think that given the facts of this case and given the facts of that conversion only comes if somebody actually steals the money then that it should apply facts implicate and inform the issue of the tolling and there is no question what the allegations are in this case and that is that the agents acting under the authority given to them by the united states government stole over one point eight million dollars from mr mrs upon when they executed a search warrant on their premises  november november eighth of two thousand and twelve and the result of them taking that money and essentially it essentially shut down their business and they had a very very successful business and it's a scrap metal and tow truck business these are ordinary people who work very hard and had built up a very successful business and as a result of that raid they lost they lost one point eight million dollars and they also lost their ability to be able to function as a business for a long period of time those allegations have been made from day one and in this case  factor that needs to be considered i know that what i'm in i'm going to address the factors in this case about whether the defendants had notice whether mr or mrs a poem diligently pursued concept is that fairness should apply and that is that and the courts should take a look at it is it likely that the defendants had notice and were that is a poem's doing everything they could to prosecute this claim  and i think that the evidence is very clear on the fact that they indeed were doing exactly that now first of all that money would get their attention wouldn't it you would think you would think  and i again i've had talks with the government's counsel about it i would think that that they would want to find out whether agents acted under the authority of the government   which seems more unlikely but that they stole the money and that it adversely affected their business and ended up shutting down their business now the government has said well you know there's no  mean just because you filed an answer and eventually it was a verified answer and in the facts on in dispute in this case the facts are have to be considered  light favorable to the plaintiff and those facts are the ones that were in verify complaint as well as the facts that we've established with regard to what mr or mrs opponent have been doing in terms of trying later that they were also pursuing at the same time there are remedies under both givens and the f t c hey there's some evidence presented to the court about the grounds for that thinking  perhaps but when you choose your lawyer then you're stuck with the consequences well i understand that but this is i think then that's a particularly interesting point with regard to equitable tolling and that is in many times a malpractise action would be would provide a full remedy it certainly wouldn't in this case where we're talking about millions of dollars in damages satisfy the kind of loss that was suffered here the thing that is so that is sort of striking about this from my perspective is that on the one hand these were folks who are capable of running a business and capable of having this man of money in the say in the business whether it's the amount the government claims or the amount they quietly that is a lot of money and mabruk and you would think that the people with the intelligence to build the business would all have would give the same attention to their legal failures and its claims he kept meticulous of the money and at the same tab i mean how can you think you have a big that if you've never seen a single piece of paper suggesting that you have in your gut your attorney has it you want and how can you be one great attention to how much money they had on the other hand pretty much complete inattention to their legal affairs i think i think you raise two good points and i'll address them in or the first one how can they not be  paying attention to their legal affairs if they're smart enough to you know run a business and make this amount of money and take meticulous notes there the very fact that that money was in the safe shows a certain tape in terms of business manners they had gotten a loan from farmer's bank and it's part of the allegations and they farmers all of a sudden put a hold on their money for i don't even  reason was but improperly it wasn't party agreement they had a fight to get it released because they need that money to run their business and they immediately took all that was seven hundred thousand dollars at the time they immediately took it all out and bought a safe on that same day because they didn't trust banks anymore and that's why they were going to put it in in there so what it doesn't have anything to do with not wanting to pay taxes no not at all and his merry fact that was keep in mind the government has already in the forward direction agreed to give it all back they have never been charged with a crime they will never be charged with a crime that there is no indication of that in the forfeiture action they've agreed not only to give the whole one point two we don't the that's definitely there but the how it came out not right much right that's right so but ok i understand i understand we said so i'll move on from that the second action was how can they be paying attention to the legal affairs on the on the when they signed that affidavit that was sent to the government you know for food or that he sent you turney food or sent to the government the only address that that was on that form that they were aware of because they signed it was their address so i think that you know it might have been that they might have thought that they were going to get it but even if they didn't well obviously if they knew the government had their address so that they might be informed and and that's the that's the only address that's in the power of attorney although obviously does reference mr for door and but they would have no way of knowing now obviously this goes directly to the know and i think that they justifiably could have relied on that but for more importantly for the equitable tolling they also were aware that the government with specific respect essay had been given their address when it became you know when we were talking about it i see that i only have one minute left and so rather than going over all of the points i equitable tolling because they're essentially they do deal with notice to the defendants and i just got to say the guy and i wanted to say one thing about this the government's in their response as well just because you show these allegations in response to the forfeiture action and put the government in that that aspect of the government on notice that the money was stolen and that they suffered big damages that doesn't mean that defendants themselves would have heard about it and i think in just the application of common sense it is inconceivable that the government wouldn't immediately talk and we believe that they did but i think just in terms of common sense immediately talk to the defendants themselves that is the agents that were there at the time that we are alleging they stole this money they were put on notice prior to the concluding of the statute of limitations because there is no reasonable and united states attorney and assistant united six tourney that would get that information and not say we've got to talk to the agents about this and get to the bottom of it one of the things that we asked for from the government but we weren't able to get was did they ever conduct an investigation and if so what was the result of the investigation but at any rate i think that i think that the concept of acol tolling is but we're looking at a fundamental fair of fairness here and if decent people in fact have been put on notice or it's certainly reasonable to expect that they have and these people morning your honest share a long for the government and the federal defendant it is settled in the supreme court and in this court that the correct statue of limitations for section one hundred eighty three claims and didn't cl bank opinion but i don't think mr whitaker disagrees i don't think so ok moving on to why the billions statue of limitation should not be the pounds are for their participation in the forfeiture case as a sign of their diligence in prosecuting their rights as well as notice to the government but the whole point of that forfeiture case was to determine the ownership to the one point two million that the district court there had to wrist action over the individual defendants didn't know that they might be in the vidual only liable for damages for one point eight million now i think it is definitely plausible that the a u s a in the forfeiture case would have gone to the agents was the story here because the post brought up the one point eight million it is more of a leap to say to them i think you guys might be personally liable for the one point eight million and in this case available different defendants could be counted as diligent and notice to the defendant and moving on to why the federal tort claims act statute of limitations should not be taught under either the court's five element test or the supreme court's two element this court fact focuses on the plane of knowledge and notice the reasonableness of any lack of knowledge or notice the plaintiffs diligence and prejudice to the defendant and jackson which was a federal tort claims act this court said that if the plaintiff have filed the administrate of claim within the two year period as what has happened here is not a reasonable for t report to conclude that they should also know about the six month post denial period and even stepping back from that those oppose as judge given said were rather intelligent people who have built a business involving millions of dollars and if they had filed a claim for one point eight million dollars with their lawyer maybe at that time they might have said well what happens after this because i really want my one point eight million back and this is really important to me what's going on and in the record the government witness the government affidavit said that with the claims where the suppose address the address was there so this is neither the type of extraordinary circumstance and diligence that would rise to the level of permitting equitable tolling or in a case where the lack of knowledge or notice of the plaintiff was government says that it's certainly plausible that the united states attorney would have called the defendants and said hey guys you're being a choose to remain accused of stealing one point a million  absolutely is and i think that satisfies the first prong and the second prong now and i didn't get but i didn't finish my yes it is judge given this question the first time about that first of all i mentioned that they were put in safe because of the problem they had with this bank and then secondly but what they do is tokar in by junk cars by the way accounts what's the standard review for the district court's decision  write that that is that is interesting in this case because the judge if it was a motion to dismiss it would just be we could just say did nobody that would that would be what we were talking about but we're not talking he converted the judge converted  build up for it but that is that aspect and aspect of this decision is the court's assessing the the reliability of your clients i didn't