the other come up with the money in the bank account you know there's more money in the bank that shows that it may have come from some illegals source or whatever but did you do that trial the trial court level we did not do you point to say this disability settlement you can't take that because that had nothing to do with any kind of illegal activity right but you care to tie that bank account into those of the same dollars that were received from the railroad right and you know you're on a day here if you're correct there's no initial direct deposit of any of the settlement money from mr washington's relative settlement but you know there there is a a record of them saving money judge the yes there's a sweet capital bank account people's exhibit eight that indicates that these these were devers which are still positive directly into their into that account and i believe the bank help provide the people evidence with with checks if memory serves correctly so i think i think there is other ways other than just doing a forensic accounting of of the of the assets and of where where the settlement money went this is how we've done well the second thing or the third thing i wanted to talk about was with regard to  up the statute that there the hearing must be within sixty days unless continued for good cause and and here in our case we have no no continuance for good cause there was no finding of that in him people love motion was denied there was an indication that there was good cause for any and all to new features that they had had during the trial proceedings in our case there is not such there's there is probable cause for this evidence to be used in a in a criminal proceeding it's my understanding that way you know if you have the sixty days it is my estimation that the sixty days is a protection for the the claimant so that the state cannot hold their property for an underage woman out of time and decide that you know later two three years down the road oh yes this is for for a criminal proceeding and that's why we've been able want to official now if they have a motion to stay on the proceedings and there's a ruling on that it's my understanding and that's within the court's purview of section section ten i believe it was so it's our understanding it's our argument that the sixty day hearing is a protection of the claimants it is meant offer that the the state never in the trial court level asked for an extension of the sixty day time period they never had a motion to strike this sixty  answer they never had a claim of inadequacy of the april seventh two thousand and eight and if if my arithmetic is correct scheduled for we did not have a hearing on this matter until the aug eighth two thousand eight hundred twenty three days after the april seventh two thousand and eight points if the sixty days as you were hearing is not met to me either there's an inconsistency in the statement that the state wants to have before for the property but doesn't necessarily want to abide by the guidelines of the sixty day statutory period and it seems to me that in reading the statute as a whole  with regard to statutory interpretation it seems that the general simply has crafted the sixty day period in order in hopes of protecting any claimant who has had their property se wrongfully without answer there is no if it's i would have to review that again for you are i'm not sure i'm sorry here i do have that information right in front of me as i was in the earthmover account as of total of thirty one thousand and fifty seven dollars and forty four cents and at the time of the close out of that account by the state there was a total of thirty three thousand dollars seven hundred eighty eight excuse me thirty three thousand seven hundred  eighty dollars and thirty one cents i do not have in front of me where the where the amount increase came from but it is my old thing with the positive being made on january over twenty five dollars plus if they didn't but my question is since there were no deposits made between the two asks that we just talked about a few minutes ago how does the make sure that there was no confusion in how the the two presumptions could apply and how they don't necessarily apply the issue lies where the state we believe if if the presumption applies which we we're willing to concede that the presumption applies to his two convictions and i see them but if i was going to say that my we're willing to concede that the presumption applies however we have what we believe or  sources for this thing and therefore we believe that he has re innocent owner they didn't rely upon that defense down below or in this court they haven't cited to that provision so he could apply accountability principles in the court made a direct lin claimants and that went nowhere so then she noticed the motion her during and only by that time the court said it on tape when it had its jury trial calendar and  up with an additional supplemental record for to proceed it's two or three pages he said you have set the hearing for june sixteenth and they made it so that was ok so then on the sixteenth that's when the prosecutor became ill managers but that doesn't necessarily make the fact true that they obtain income drugs two points i wanted to merge me three points i wanted to make is brought up that what we come down to here is whether on the on the presumption of the drug forfeiture act of seven two we have whether or not this is a conviction for tact and might we argue that it's case it has to be interpreted as a conviction if it's simply an act in felony violation then you have  you know you have the instance which we have here where the prosecutor has the deborah pled guilty to count one of the first instance and second instance there was no prosecution my estimation don't you you know how can you forfeit someone's property if they're not prosecuted for for that second act and its argument were you know a lot of their income is unaccountable right accounted for but these are just ordinary people they have normal streams of income you see from the courts evidence that they have wages coming in from his disability and wages coming in from her state of only job that they save save save money as indicated by their accounts transaction