jury's what standards the jury have to find in that case was it simply preponderance of the evidence that mr nava owned the property i assume that they had to find that beyond a reasonable do that there was never any indication in any record whatsoever that victor and i had any interest in these properties at any time or that the properties were ever acquired nava had indicated that he knew that the properties were holden held in other people's names and that he would try to get them to convey the property to the government that plea agreement was withdrawn t of taxes on a couple of circu preponderance of the evidence and then the jury went out twenty minutes later they came back again with the notes in the notes said are we limiting limited to considering only this this property in other words could we also consider a van and other commissioner get to look behind the transfer and say well mr navas the state is going to acquire this house you know if they go into bankruptcy does the bankruptcy trustee come in and take that the house away from victoria i think those church two different things in the bankruptcy that possibly could because it could be considered a hidden aspect in the fact of his death probably not but those are two different ways of looking at it in the ancillary proceeding she has to prove that she has a superior right title and interest not just i have this piece of paper that says it's mine because it's clear from the the record that she was living somewhere else when she turned eighteen and he gave her this property in the same day he gave her the other property but if you look at the time he's known were issues of the time that there was creek commission o under federal law and if you look at the place that she lives in here's the interesting chain of events she doesn't live there right away when they give it to her she moves in at some later point then on november twentieth of two thousand her father is indicted at that point this is a woman whose husband is in prison it's clear from the record our live in boyfriend whatever you want to call him she has had and does not have any legitimate employment but the taxes are being paid she never has had a mortgage on this property never has made improvement that indicted november of two thousand in january of two thousand and one of the courts to respond to it from the record raises an issue saying i think your lawyer has a conflict of interest and then on january fourteenth the court orders the lawyer to be taken off the case for this conflict of interest then on april fourth she makes an application for a thirty three thousand dollars mortgage first time ever in the history of this with her husband joseph raina and then there's another application april sixteenth because she's not employed she has no income ranges income is the only thing that's been counted towards the payments the april fourth mortgage on may third they get the loan and get the mortgage shortly after that and then on april twenty third there's a new lawyer in place a privately retained lawyer in place within less than a week when she gets the mortgage proceeds and has said that her mortgage is for the purposes of refinancing and they give the new lawyer i believe from the transcripts twenty eight thousand dollars and the other five thousand dollars goes to the fees for taxes because she had no money was not employed and hard time understanding how this kind of title ownership of matter went but this is this is where we're mixing apples and oranges she had a piece of paper that gave her any time during any of these proceedings that any of these crime that this crime occurred prior to nine hundred ninety six this question you're question to me is the first time i've heard my point here was this person that she was not a purchaser for value i think the purchase of value concept means implies that what you're talking about is purchasing for value from the criminal defendant and of course property owned by a criminal defendant or property acquired from a criminal defendant and that is clearly not the case in