the ultimate decision whether to or disentanglement rested in the sound discretion of the trial court if there is a case that calls for the exercise of that discretion in finding the claimant is not challenging that use here the property of the government is seeking forfeiture of is located in bermuda the claimant is a mexican citizen who is living in mexico the united states has jurisdiction and has an interest and so on and the right part of the case the question i think for this court is in terms of the policy considering the active state trucked in and comedy is how did those interests of the united states active state and your and national comedy argument and the district court dismissed those immediately and that they were they came not supportive of any kind of a state because there were no there's no active state involved and there was no international comedy involved in it because it was nothing but statements essentially that there was no evidence that your man was a crook the by the say nothing more than there is no evidence of a political corruption on the part of the defendant here to say any more than that the documents say this individual has not is not being investigated well that that's just an observation though isn't it there's been no investigation and there's been no conviction that's not a determination that's just the statement of the condition of that it's an observation is and i agree that it's an observation judge graves but at the same time in the context of this case which is the government's repeated refusal to provide any discovery any documents in support of their for submitted by another agent one of those affidavits was submitted under seal and the only indication in the record is that it talked about that a credible fear as of the witnesses we haven't seen that document we have no idea what it's  have before us and and special agent lines of his affidavit talks nothing about the specifics of the case specific evidence all it says is we talk to some witnesses and that's al the complaint whether it's the original complaint or the amended verified complaint has no details as to the evidence there's no meat on the bones and mr silva repeatedly asked for evidence in the criminal d a claim to a residence in brownsville the government decided to non sweet that residence in an effort to avoid giving her discovery to which she was intitled the government promised to the court in the  initial proceedings when the court entered a different title in order that it had witnesses it had documents and based on those representations i think it's fair to stay from the from the court's order that the court order doesn't title that at the end of the day we have seen nothing and because of that mr silva on reconsideration went and collected these documents he did what i think any good person who's charge who believes he's innocent who  charged with crimes he provided documentary evidence to the court let me ask you how that fits into your concession that all the requirements for imposing the the  are present in this case that's correct although we are not conceding that any of those statutory factors have not been met here but again the ultimate discretion lies with the district court and here given t unique factual circumstances the existence of government over whom we submit that that a court should have looked ok this is what you did but aren't you when you make that concession that all of the requirements a year for the district court to act you're saying the court did not act you know legally and consequently if you didn't act illegally there's no abuse of discretion unless you're a less and less you rely your documents from the attorney general of that particular state that i'll go into now on to to the mexican documents i think the mexican documents are very critical factor that could be at play in terms of making that discussion every decision whether or not the world does the time and here there is an existence of government overreach here or there is the existence of the government refusing on the part of the district court here are not written in your favor that's correct at this is we admit that this is it abuse of discretion issue with respect to the determination of future of this is on we also submit that the court misread and was unfair and to his characterization and interpretation of the mexican documents i think that makes the documents a part of it and i think the other part of it is looking at this unprecedented use of the civil forfeiture laws and looking at this case and the needle is that congress has said that it just report has the ultimate discretion whether or not to order feasted to some type of them and apart from the statutory factors which were  essentially just rubber stamps the government's applications with respect to both of those will and we would submit that if a court is that the judge brains should have a look at the is the public accounts because the mayor contained no irregularities he's followed text terms has been in good standing that there is no criminal record and there is no charges of wrongdoing or pending to open investigations of so what does that tell us require it to strip or to look at the interests of the united states versus the interest if the court really does mean the hypothetical brownsville is right across the border from out of the us and if the mexican legal authorities had decided to indict the mayor of brownsville and said he's engaged in public corruption had decided to forfeit some property belonging to that man wouldn't this court when we believe that those are uniquely american focused on public corruption as to his time as mayor of the city and i think if the shoe was on the other foot we would say that these are uniquely american interests and it should be american courts adjudicating it should be american legal  for the processes of the united states that it should be precluded from engaging further the resources of this court any court to further its interests and for pitcher and yet here we are today and he is not honor's that this case including this instant appeal has never been about the district court application of fugitive us and title meant or of the correctness of a default judgment but rather the quest for the mr silver of the government dissin titled and he was distant title when he was just a title that creates a presumption and this is the key to disentanglement and goes back all the way to hammond packing versus arkansas that the fugitive it's a self created presumption that the fugitive claim has no merit he's abandoned any defense to forfeiture that he may have so in this particular case after mr silva had been  entitle by the court not having to challenge the status quo in other ways to show launch he basically what it is it's from a presumption where he admits to the government's facts in a ducktails into the the rule fifty five default that's that's that's the whole basis of it so in order to circumvent this part presumption and it wanted to attempt to continue to engage the court to obtain evidence from the united states he came up with three arguments so here even doesn't title so he's asking the court it's a be is abuse of discretion of the courts not reconsidering its finding of disentanglement so we had or he had been found to some titled when he presented these three arguments to the district court and again in the court review plead facts we don't believe the evidence but assuming for the sake of argument that we did have a weak governments case which we don't that that is not something that the court considers one is looking at doesn't tell me that goes people be varney and this is actually what i'm talking about you know the smith barney court basically sat and touches another court courts are cases as well that the merits of the government's case is irrelevant to this entitle mitt goes the alleged corruption that is the basis of the fourth tour here and first i want they never really to challenge the factual and get what they did was in their first motion to strike their challenge the complaint because it did paragraph four three nineteen identify the financial transactions and that occurred with that money through the united states states banks into the bermuda account it is not a bare bones complaint it goes what does it say about the two thousand and seven and he was elected mayor in two thousand and seven and during the campaign this corruption began by him taking campaign contributions from certain individuals or companies and then after he was elected on the on the premise that he would then award them public works contracts and after he was elected mayor and this is kind of where the banking activity kind of intertwined with that because we talk about what he had in his account some monies that he had this accounts immediately before he was elected and bidding process that they have to go through in order to award contracts so we allege that the bidding process was not was not followed and on top of that he awarded contracts either to companies that existed only on paper and when he did  contracts those companies that he had been given campaign contributions towards he was given a kickback from giving them the award of the contract i think that's i think there's a little bit more but i'm just from the top and one of the ways that the visit or the  christi on aug fifteenth distant titled an individual granted a default judgment on facts almost identical to this one almost identical there was one distinction the complaint alleging addition to the money laundering violation predicated on the on the  bermuda account he remained a fugitive in mexico his wife was a claimant she was struck under saying percent sions and at the end the court granted a default judgment for pitcher and that happened on august third of twenty fifteen over almost under identical fact he was a bor exactly i mean this and there's other cases that go beyond this one i mean we've got you know there are there's numerous cases that were cited in the brief by both sides that involve you know foreign nationals with banks with moneys and accounts all over not just in one country but in several countries it's not criminal activity when it went in under in two thousand when they under the patriot act and it talks about why they enlarge it and basically it was we are we are offended that these foreign nationals are using our u s banking and financial institutions to launder their dirty proceeds and documents if you want to take a look at them i've got three sets of copies with their translations and i can tell you specifically that if you look on the face of these documents on the face of these documents they do not say what he says they do he claims that you know the first thing they were certifying the election it doesn't say their use of campaign funds were transparent it doesn't say you know that that they followed all proper procedure it basically says the votes are counted the official vote says these people won that's it that's it the next set of document it's a something equivalent to what we would get from the i r s it's basically says he filed his tax returns he paid moneys on the tax returns that it doesn't even make it doesn't even say that he his the declaration of his income was it was correct it would have been more compelling your honour's if he had submitted the tax returns to show what the source of those funds work maybe that would have been a more compelling circumstance for the court to consider whether or not to reconsider its motion for doesn't time and it's a clearly erroneous fact finding standard the court that the an order for this court to find that the judge abuses discretion you would have to go back it's these documents are pivotal and you have to go back and when you do and you look at these documents for what they are what they say on their face his description of these documents as being officially exonerate have an official declaration by mexico that i have committed no crime not discuss and i wish to discuss it further because it's significant was that the government's interest is not just where the government the united states brings a cause of action and files a lawsuit criminally or civilly what the governments of our governments the real i'm in of the government's interest in this is again going back to congress is the prevention of the use of our financial institutions for foreign nationals to use our banks as a clearinghouse at that and that's that is the real purpose and policy circumstances do exist then the proper thing to do is to dismiss the case you if their production deference of jurisdiction they abstain from exercising the jurisdiction so that the other foreign country can resolve the issue or the dispute it's not a reconsideration of dissent title meant so that somebody can so that suit can go on that would contravene the whole purpose of the doctrines it's just it makes no sense but he but he doesn't want the case to be dismissed under a doct state or international company or state because he wants the government evidence this case has always been about getting the government's evidence and want to do a person is just intitled litigation ends it ends were over there is no a person who is just a title is presumed to have waived their defenses and abandon any claim to forfeiture so that basically you're in it you are it it dovetails right into the only inevitable result of that is going to be a default situation and that's discussed and it's discus should have from the district court sign that he is entitled then he has no right to challenge the appeal beyond that none whatsoever clock not whatsoever but i'm not saying that doesn't relieve the government's burden and we and the court correctly found that we met our burden we still have to meet we look to rule supplemental we look to roll ninety three and i will say i cannot say this the strong enough we do not have to prove our case by apra pondering of the evidence in order to obtain a default judgment why it's like every other default situation what do you do you look to the pleadings and the concerns that that mr silva has about government overreaching were addressed by congress again with the patriot act when it required that the government have to be being held to a heightened pleading requirement under supplemental rule g r p requirement goes beyond rule eight we have to split specifically details facts to establish that we will be able to meet our burden of proof at trial proponents of the evidence that the circumstances are justified understand and that there is a substantial connection between the property and the criminal act underlying that criminal activity so that forfeiture be appropriate and that's exactly what judge crane did he found when he when the that we've served everybody that's it with the first thing we need to do is show publication we have to search all interested parties we met that requirement the next thing we have to do is we have to show we have to establish through our pleadings that they are specifically played and we meet the also made that made that finding when he found that the monies that he gained from the kickbacks and the of the conduct in mexico were brought into the u s banks and move through the u s banks to the bermuda account that is your substantial connection it  also what the courts should be finding is that we in a default situation of forfeiture is that we think we have a court find that the government's played the government has met the publication requirements the notice requirements and that the pleading taken sufficiently detailed facts that you know that the government has has can meet its burden of proof out trial and that there is a substantial connection between the criminal property and the under and the underlying crime so that forfeiture is justified released on bail to fight his case and the government said no and there was no agreement that could be so what happens if he's going to come to to court to answer his charges he is going to be incarcerated and what free man who's living his life in mexico who was the former mayor is going to want to do that and i agree and i think the did judge crane agreed to that as well and that and that that is that's precisely the issue here is right now right there i'm not for what is want to go to jail but of course he's of course he's staying in mexico for she doesn't want to go to jail of course he wants to see the discovery that's exactly what this case is about he has been charged he wants to know what the evidence can come in found out he could come in find out and then he would be incarcerated and that's that's the decision that mr silva has to make but it's a decision that it doesn't need to be that way given the circumstances if the that his where he is he is staying a far but under the under the discretionary just not being an action to the charges immediately and need probably obtain bond but maybe you know they they might say that he presents a flight risk but i don't know what would happen the fact is we are where we are today and mr silva has repeatedly asked for discovery he's repeatedly asked to learn about what this case is about and if you look at the complaint apart from two conclusory paragraphs which talk about you know there's a scheme that exists and you know there are these skeleton companies there's no ok they filed a complaint and for right correct and it made various he's made no effort has been tried shown i suppose the show has bank accounts went up to two million or more dollars salary and one hundred thousand dollars or so and there's effort to try to relate to challenge the essence of the corruption there was a joint scheduling order entered in that case the parties planned to conduct discovery just like any other civil litigation they were playing to be depositions claimed to be the change of discovery and then the government brought the hammer down and said you were just entitle that as it is and we submit that that event should have been a surprise to you that it may not have been a surprise but but again the standard talks about discretion and we think that that quite frankly did the thread the needle in this case if there is a case that calls for exercise that discretion this is the one now the government bears the burden under under  they say what they say and that you have them in the record if i hear it was an innocent person then i wanted to get some proof of my innocence some proof saying i hate the government's not investigating me i think it would be very very difficult to find a document to say that but mr silva tried to do that's what he tried to do because he believes that he's innocent he's been a law abiding citizen in mexico and why is this american judicial system getting involved and his business so he tried to do exactly what he was supposed to do which is to try and come up with evidence to show to the district court that it should not just in time i see my time is done and th