there were sixteen there are fifty to eighty four united states of america care of the united states attorney's office versus seventeen thousand nine hundred dollars in the united states currency joyce goldman l appellants this laser for the  ownership of the funds as and i quote simply define common sense unlikely intocable and exceeding the bounds of rational acceptance the district court made it improper credibility determination it was statements and their references in your grief to the fact that they had provided other documents to the government during the administrative process one was the bank account what were some of the other documents there were many documents provided to the gun like what the this included for example receipts for thralls funds from their bank accounts statements that were of a statements that indicated the date upon which to funds were deposited into those accounts including the rapid refund advance of their tax refunds stephenson the king withdrawal from their retirement funds into closing a many of those pieces of evidence were admitted by the government in their briefing there was a table in the government's reading below that set out precisely which documentation provided what dollar amount of the fun s furthermore there is other evidence here that supports or cooperates their sworn statements in addition to the details where it seems they provided the complaint makes clear they are not climate some cells were not in possession of the property when it was seized to facts the nature of what they would have to show but they do have to show in order to have standing and give you the claims although there are cases that is competent evidence summary judgment some possession interviews around possession is not necessary and there are cases that show that possession further cooperates those statements so that's not the price where that's my money if it was simply a brawl statements i swear that's my money that would have died you some tax refunds and i would through some money from my bank account here there's there is far more than not to answer your question though in a simple assertion  that's my money would not would not be enough i've been under the mere assertion standards if you start providing more evidence such as receipts for how the funds were sourced that frees you further towards the line here it certainly crossed the line of some evidence and more than a conclusory statement when you provide not only the detail of how those funds were sourced but also details as to the travel but with those funds the dates of the travel where they were travelling to and how the funds were travelling back we come back on the death rate by courts point was no reasonable jury could credit claimants claim that is in that's inappropriate take what they said themselves for instance what they did with the money in north carolina and yet they ask very person they had no faith in to bring the money to them in new york i mean they're talking out of both sides of their mouth some of those the decision may have been one that is different from one that you or i might have made i have even been a bullish decision but that doesn't make it a decision that i know one thousand so what the judge was saying because he was questioned about that i don't know if you personally but he was question about that even understand that poor people don't always deal  credit cards and financing transactions and he said well these people had money markets they had thank accounts except and so i don't think he outlawed the notion that it could be reasonable to trade in cash but there was just nothing location at that time and why they why they then asked him to bring it back specifically they stated judge the judge took their statements at face value and said they didn't want to tell me he left it because they were concerned he might take some of it and yet later they asked him to bring it from north carolina to new york the very person they didn't trust with the money that was a improper credibility determination because you that's what their client statement said it wasn't if you look at the full cont states that they believed that they were going to return shortly to north carolina and of course the try to travel with currency is not necessarily without its risks they might not have wanted to bring them the funds back to new york when they were expecting to media be returned to north carolina when post surgery she realized that she had to stay in new york for a longer period of time and her son was returning then she has to bring the funds back up but if you look at if you look at the full context there are explanations for this and it was improper in a summary judgment standard for the courts t case which is the case situation where there is entirely impossible allegations the court made clear there is not a situation where the allegations are merely unlikely or improbable but are so impossible as to be breathalysed this is certainly not a case of rebel us assertions ok so it's it's i take it it's your view that even though the claimants here believe that they will be able to produce documentation of various aspects of the transactions that where claimants lived and that it was in the back of their son with his name on it these are all facets of the cooperate their ownership of the funds it's not merely a case of a detailed affidavit although that would be sufficient under the case and he didn't know about it even though it was in the backpack he was carrying because they said just take that preparing and put it in the backpack and come don't look at it and being a good obedient child did not look it's not in the record whether or not he but whether or not people thought it well be very interested in something that your parents put in the back and say you know we love this there you bring that with us ok sure all the stuff in my backpack sure it's a hundred pounds of cocaine that's not what was the case you know but that's my point you  knows with my last remaining seconds here that in the forfeiture cases in particular it is very important that the threshold for standing is one that is very low recall that this supreme court  was contradictory so within the record claimants have made different statements about how that money ended up in peter rodriguez's no one point which is cited at paragraph fourteen of our complaint they said that they themselves to positive the money into his backpack without calling in their derogatory however they said that they handed the money to them and then later asked him to carry the money back up that's important because then when mr rodriguez is confronted by law enforcement he denies not only that there's money in his backpack but that there's a shopping and so there there we have a contradiction within the record that undermines their statement and that combined with all these other  most fundamentally implausible element is that you can trust your retirement savings to somebody who is a known drug trafficker and whom you firmly do believe just trust to handle your currency and you do this when you have a viable alternative you've shown no qualms about carrying that currency keeping it in a lot filing cabinet kerry a road trip from new york city down to north carolina and then instead of taking that currency with you as you've shown a habit of doing you entrusted to this very trustworthy issues that have to be dealt with a hearing on a summary judgment i mean it may be the fact that he's had some experience with drug trafficking that he doesn't want to get to find cash because he thinks it's going to be for fed and this is my mom's  video of the court when they're assessing expert testimony they have of the entirety of what's going to be proffered there isn't any further credibility to be determined about the content whereas these are la lame witnesses who were there it's a very different kind of evidence do you know any case on that where there's that lame witness affidavit that's ignored on summary judgment while the the eight point four million dollars case from for certain involves away with suits that the party that that would that if it's a first circuit evidence i'm just looking here in our standard in this in this circuit ok so in this circuit we hold that we can put aside sworn testimony in three conditions undermined by other of these three requirements undermined by other credible evidence that's number one physical impossibility or evidence a plate of committed perjury those are the three to take those in order here i think question at this point you agreed with me that the proper standard is hazarding that assertion of possession and some evidence of it that's the standard not whether this is drug money that the merits so what is there evidence you have to take it to help us decide this case you like us have to look at this through the summary judgment lens and that requires and so far what i've heard is i haven't heard circuit case that was actually evidence of perjury because his story you know first story was i'm just carrying all this money for somebody else and by the way he paid me this money and then suddenly his story changes so know not only that are inconsistent but that pretty powerful evidence if the guy's lie but here i don't use or anything like that here other than the government has one view of the facts in the palace have another view of the facts which to me again sounds like a jury unbelievable as to the banking habits he says he's been given quote no reason to believe or to believe that she was logistically going to quit to pay for it and then when they were to it when he rejected peter's testimony quote simply unbelievable so i don't think we do know but that the district court cases for rejecting most of this was he just didn't believe these people that can be rejected is based based on the standard you would have been talking about and the only thing i've heard from you so far and you correct me if this isn't right is that there's an inconsistency right if nothing else  don't see anything like that here i think the decision to address your retirement savings when you had no reason to do so into a known drug trafficker whom you both term of in sworn statements feared that he would steal some