reimbursement for his fees and services to both of the defendants and seeking his reimbursement out of the proceeds from the sale of the market street and seven hundred california street and by the way the net proceeds from the sale those properties was about three point eight million dollars from the sale of six ninety market street and two point five million dollars from the sale of seven hundred california street council why it matters what these matters handle before the bankruptcy court well as gives a conveys to your client an interest in market street as well as in the a partnership hung in the particular partnership long thank you partnership and if that's the case  should not they claim i've been brought in bankruptcy court along with the others well there's been no representation that any of the claims should have been brought into the bankruptcy court regarding my client's claim against temptation no i don't know that that's true even if it does forfeiture because of what happened four days after the purchase of the property the court's reasoning i submit the court really makes no sense and i can't imagine how it would cost a court to believe that and here's the reason why the but there's no reason for the court will come to that conclusion in fact when the court discussed the average for any mr houston issue the court concluded made certain findings from the court's findings were that suspicion should have had some reasonable belief that the property has something to forfeiture is just too great of a stretch and still of course reasoning as to hughes i cannot find any reason why there's an equally apply to mr kissinger and i realize that i lost all my time for  the statute the court look to the tiny and the magnitude of the timing of the transactions related to the transfer of stock with respect to the s t l the purchase of the building with the project  meeting help regarding the creation or incorporation of s u o n eight thirteen the day before the loan application was submitted the court was aware of that that was part of the record for the court consider so it didn't seem there was supposed to be any corp meeting for work that he did in various projects related to go six nine years and seven hundred california he did claim that his only function at those two meetings was a scribe he well he didn't ask any questions about why this  happening he didn't seek any fees with respect to it the court found that incredible to be honest and court said given all of this whole thing it's totally incredible to think that he didn't know that these people were straw buyers and that and a forfeiture was a residence and the residence was used to conduct a drug activity marijuana grow operation or something like that and also it was purchased with in fact drug proceeds from a prior operation if the government charged in its criminal particular case it had to do with a fraud scheme an investment fraud scheme where the defendant was just the private investor that of the tune of fifty million dollars one of the investors  went to the defendant and said hey look if you don't you know give me title this property we pay this loan i'm going to call the authorities on you and i'm going to complain well what the president did is quit claim of interest into property which property w did not know that the phone application there's there's nothing on the record about the loan application what so ever in relationship my client the issue never came up and they never came up he was deposed by the government the government never asked him that question but there was court even assume that he establishes clane can't be a burden on him to establish a negative because it doesn't make any sense there was no evidence whatsoever that he had any knowledge or had any reasonable belief that the property disrupted forfeiture nothing produce to counter the judge's notion of willful blindness around that building us will pull blindness you know i don't think the concept of willful blindness applies here it's impossible for him to have known something like that there's no evidence that he was even involved in that just because he was an attorney doing certain things for certain people doesn't mean he knew  element it's a one piece of paper that was a loan application and like you said your honor you know it probably was totally irrelevant to the loan itself or the bank made about four million court i don't see that he has a burden of proof on that point and i don't know that it would be incumbent upon him to come forward with a negative when all the evidence in the case clearly shows that he was not involved in the loan application not involved at all thank you thank you