talk in this case the government always knew and admitted in two thousand and eight that the defendant currency was not forfeit a ball and for all of this for for and to back that up there was a proposed settlement lad a letter with the us from the government to the stage of you know i don't understand what you're trying to do here to be honest with you  unravel the settlement the settlement never should have taken place but did well and was approved by the bankruptcy court right as approved by the district court the fact that it was approved by the district court and the money have any duty or obligation to appear in the bankruptcy case it was in this case  this isn't what happened here that the states recognize mr yang and interest in the currency and everybody knew mr yang was in bankruptcy court and they were credited creditors in the bankruptcy court and the bankruptcy judge was going to give the money to the creditors that the a states had recognized mr yang and had an interest in and before the bankruptcy judge did that everybody who might have a contrary interest had a chance to file objections and the states filed objections and for some  i would say again recognizing an interest in states in the estates in the city which belong to the estates and couldn't belong to anyone else until the p doesn't give complete ownership to him until the estates were probate in a never work because money was essentially handed over to the trust in in this in this case i just don't see that it's the same type of situation that you normally get and not only that the government itself acknowledged very early on that the that the current seen question belong to the estates  were innocent owners office and that is way back when in two thousand and eight that never changed i still don't understand why the state didn't pursue their interest in the currency in the bankruptcy court well i don't think it's sort of generically but basically it was a claimant in this case it was turned over to him and it should not of them because they he never it never was for federal funds well it was put out it was it was turned over to him because it was possession of the money or had control of the currency at the time he filed bankruptcy but that when that at the time and he didn't disclose the two hundred fifty thousand on his bankruptcy papers funds and that the trustee like statutory standing as a result of timely filling time timely to the fun announcer and that's s t r for death five the point being that the government itself recognized that these funds were not profitable properly for for the ball and never should have been and that should have been the end of the case that should have been the end of absolutely envious that they weren't i'm not sure that the courts question us because it seems to me i mean either it's moot or that or it's race judicata or something we're talking about a pot of money that after these two individuals died m yang was entitle to and the bankruptcy court decided that he owed more than that to his creditors so they were entitled to it before he took anything under it and you had the opportunity to voice objection to that in the bankruptcy court and you chose not to we withdrew their objections so other than the fact the only thing i hear you saying is but it's a matter of timing notice of interest he essentially took over the state's position and he actively litigated all of these claims that are raised in the appeal he litigated the issue of whether the the district court had jurisdiction over the forfeited funds he filed motions for summary judgment he basically took the position of these states all during the pendency of the forfeiture case so i don't think that he can now argue that the the notice of his interest that he filed that that was the only thing that gave him the authority to litigate these issues on behalf of the state if if he had not filed that he would not have been able to participate standing to litigate this issue and then what occurred is mr yardman decided to settle the case and he had to have settled the the claims of these states as well as th his claim and the settlement did provide that the funds were to be paid to the the bankruptcy trustee the bankruptcy trustee and the settlement was subject to bankruptcy court approval which is why the dismissal of the forfeiture case the court that he was or the settlement would not have been entered into because it's so that that makes the selman binding on this because he made the representation yes it does because what you thought he for that able to enter into the soundman and he and the settlement would not have happened other than his representation that he was finding  voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit brought by ited states says that the claimants of these claimants the estates of rich and small and stephen yagami who are adverse parties who have appeared in this action here by stipulate that they agree to voluntarily dismiss the action of the plaintiff that is by the united states that signed claiming one hundred percent of any interest it has and i believe it does your honor that that's what was represented to the district court i don't have but that's not what this that's not what this notice said but that's what was represented to the district court or the settlement never would that the the signers to the agreement including eggman constitute all of the current parties to the case i know they're making their representation on behalf of himself how can that bind bind the estate because the only two claim case some case that says the phrase recognizing interest is the term of art that that means i don't know of any specific case that does that but that was the representation he made to the district court because if he had not made that representation to the district court the settlement wouldn't have occurred and he would not have been able to advocate the interests of the states in the nanny motions he filed during the forfeiture case he effectively advocated the state's interests throughout the case and then he settled the state's interests so he represented to the court that he had that authority on behalf of these states again the only two claimants for the funds were the states and well we believe that this appeal is moot that there is nothing that can be accomplished by doing that at this point the funds have been paid to the bankruptcy trustee the bankruptcy trustee filed his notice of distribution the state's objected to the distribution and then withdrew their objection and the bankruptcy court ordered the funds dispersed and they get the funds are gone they've been disbursed to the creditors of mr one of the reasons is that there were actually two forfeiture proceed there was that the forfeiture perceive this forfeiture proceeding which involved the currency and there was a separate forfeiture proceeding involving a residence in venice that that mystery  also claimed an ownership interest in the settlement in exchange for the release of the currency into the bankruptcy state the trustee gave up his right to claim an interest in the residen end both cases were dismissed with prejudice so if there was a claw back that trustee be able to have the right to go back against that residence that was essentially given back to part of this settlement so the remedy of of the club back first of all that the the claw back would be against parties that are not part of this appeal i mean they're not here they in his counsel and to the creditors in the in the case and none of them are our parties to this proceeding so i don't see how setting aside the dismissal would have the a fact of getting that money back into the forfeiture case i don't i don't think i think that's an impossibility so that this court would not be able to film was signed in the for this were for your case to the funds right yes and then approved by the court it was there like a then a further order of the court releasing the money to the bankruptcy christi or something like that there was an approval of the settlement in the bankruptcy court by the i know that but i have to have the back to the bankruptcy court always hold the money know that the money was being held by the government right to the my question so that was  was some order you know transferring the money from the government to the crusty there once the settlement was approved by the court and that the case this the forfeiture case was dismissed the government district judge in august of twenty fourteen granted motion the government to dismiss the forfeiture complaint its work with your complaint you retain jurisdiction over the there is a separate document called the settlement agreement that's in here somewhere to know the settlement was placed on the record under seal in the in the for that mean recognise the interest of claim well mr my understanding is that mr jackman had made a motion to intervene in the case and the basis for it was he had an interest in the currency by virtue of the fact that he was just basically ignored the fact that the the states always had interest and never could not have an interest and the money was always there and it's it's  it's too late to go into jurisdiction but i think this is the type of case where you know martin lane should be extended to this situation where there should have been a voluntary dismissal there was a fact at the very end of the case by the government because there was nothing to forfeit because the funds were not for for the ball so i think that's the bottom line with respect to that what do you hope to accomplish