courts should not be having in chambers decisions do we raise it our brief and we sort of raised it partially when we asked the court to accelerate the hearing but i think that's an important point here that this case was reassigned from one judge to another after it was contested with those statements under oath and we have no idea what basis that was it was reassigned and we feel like that violates due process and if the court would let us assume in a memo and that we'd like to do it otherwise we just rely on page thirty nine through just forty two of the  decision to reassign the case judge wilson and our point is that since we filed statements on your oath and jacking to it that the court should not have gone ahead and reassigned and left it with the original j and it was judge burn because it's in effect like an in camera summary judgment because you raise issues of fact and what the supreme court said in the can or cases that these things that are important like this that they have to be in the record you have to have what factors the court took into consideration and not leaving it with judge vern i don't think you i don't think there's anything you can point to any rule or any constitutional provision that says you have a right to have a hearing before a certain judge so i don't think this argument going to get you too far but let's look i want to talk to you about what's the current state of the process of the alleged investigation against your client it's still going on your ongoing yes it's three years now it's still going nothing's happened constitutional objections and the government didn't want to go forward because they didn't want to discover it and that's another reason why i filed the civil action to attack the constitution of the statute because there's no discovery involved thoughts of pure attack on the procedures separate and distinct from forfeiture anything else why can't you raise all of your constitutional arguments in the forfeiture proceeding i don't understand because your hon before we could even file a response or pleading my client has to make a statement saying that under oath and it may incriminate him that he's the owner of the property and other blood some point in the civil proceeding an ongoing investigation i understand your constitutional argument is that there's an ongoing criminal investigation where the government has asserted its forfeiture rights anywhere so that's the problem there and this court has said there's no immunity over those statements and you would have you know in a motion to suppress so we're not able to that's why this violates access to the court we're can't do anything into a father so you're telling me that once the court government filed this forfeiture proceeding there's nothing you could do in that case except to file a statement that's that's a condition precedent yes before you can do anything yes argument you're conceding the plaintiff's contention that pictures of patients in the floor if that you're proceeding with wires standing and that standing requires an interest in the property before yes however the government had offered to the cowards that they would that the government would not use their statement of interest in the government's case in chief against them in exchange for that and what withdrawing their motion for summary judgment we never heard back from the appellant's in response to that offer so that their fear that that they would place him in jeopardy by actually fi necessarily entitled to attorney's fees under the equal access to justice act they're entitled to attorney's fees unless the government can make a showing with the government was substantially justified which in this case would be relatively easy because the government could just turn to the fact that they sought a seizure warrant from a federal magistrate judge judge johnson allowed that  would be entitled to attorney's fees as far as the the the criminal investigation your honor we actually are very close to making charging this whole process when people are on your and that's to gauge and the point i want to make is we filed first and under thirteen thirty one we're entitled to have our our case heard and it was up on summary judgment on a peer question of law  conflates equitable jurisdiction was subject matter jurisdiction and it was my understanding and bear in mind that i haven't studied equity for an awfully long time but it was my understanding that  equitable jurisdiction is determined subsequent to the determination of subject matter jurisdiction and that equitable jurisdiction depends on certain elements that the matter is one equity takes the case and finally that the case lends itself to the formulation of a decree of some kind so in this case the trial court did not deny that it had subject matter jurisdiction it a of assumed subject matter jurisdiction proceeded equitable jurisdiction and concluded that you had an adequate remedy at long if that is a correct conclusion then the court had no equitable jurisdiction and its decision is correct if that is incorrect and you did not have an adequate remedy for then of course you have a legitimate argument before this court but to  jurisdiction with subject matter jurisdiction confuses things to me when you're under well look at it is then subject matter jurisdiction that's and in civil rights actions the remedy just happens to be thirty one and and i also pointed out the an analysis of equity jurisdiction of this court but i think there's a difference between statutory jurisdiction which allows you to bring a cause of action by act of congress law and show that he will he or she will suffer irreparable injury before the court can grant an injunction and you suggested interpretations of the ministry procedure act whole that as well no i can't say that you do have a guaranteed a right to do that but look at all the hurdles we're being forced to go over we find a person a simple pure legal action and to make us go and do all these other things it's denying us  even getting in the door and then it's been state the judge refuses to set the state aside the government doesn't want the state they don't want the forfeiture action to go forward they don't want criminal discovery we're not interested in criminal united states