some judicial proceedings judge gossip determined that the united states was right in that respect and we believe that judge gossett ruling in that regard was incorrect information facts first off united states failed to give proper notice to mr brewer the non judicial foreclosure and there's some some question about what the proper remedy is when that happens we don't believe that the united states ever demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a substantial connection to a crime we believe that mr brewer was an innocent o this money and that it would constitute just fine under the amendment with regards to the i'll start with the statutory claim we have under eighteen u s c nine hundred three with regard to the failure to provide timely timely notice  to mr brewer first often it's and i have to be honest the government actually provided a better chart of it than i did in my brief the government attempted to send a notice of mr brewer on three separate occasions the first occasion was in january ninth person there were two letters sent one to a prior address of mr brewer's which should under no circumstances been considered to have gotten to him which leaves us with the first letter that was sent from quantico virginia on january ninth and there was affidavit evidence at the hearing on the motion to dismiss that was senate thirteen hundred hours and that that letter came back somehow circulated from quantico virginia to schomberg illinois and back to the desk of the agent in quantico virginia at i think was eleven twenty three hours on january tenth that in that in and of itself sort of clued in the agent to the fact that that letter was not sent properly and probably should have been recent immediately that letter wasn't actually recent again for fifty full days on february twenty ninth two thousand and twelve which was ninety three days after after the actual seizure on november twenty eighth two thousand and eleven  which brings us to eighteen u s c nine hundred eighty three and i have to admit i have some discomfort with the way this statute all works together it's not entirely clear what remedy is available to the claimant when he doesn't get proper notice you know if you go through it under nine eighty three a sub one that says if if notice isn't sent the money shall be returned and i actually did the whole law school thing where you go through and you underline the shall and the may and  it's not a permissive return the money shall be returned so if you accept that notice was not proper it was not reasonably sent to mark brewer in the first ninety days there's absolutely no question that that money had to be returned to mr brewer that doesn't mean that the government couldn't later file their file their motion for application for forfeiture and they ultimately did file their application for forfeiture and so from our perspective there's absolutely no question that from about february twenty seventh of two thousand and twelve through june june twelfth of two thousand and twelve mark brewer was absolutely entitled to the possession of a sixty three thousand dollars and the government was essentially holding that money illegally and so what remedy is available to him well i think we cited to a case out of the  district of puerto rico where the district court judge there and blessedly this issue doesn't come up particularly frequently the district court judge there decided that the proper remedy was to actually dismiss dismiss the forfeiture action outright i understand there's some other case law that out there that does recognize that what should be done is it should just be ignored essentially the person doesn't didn't get notice but the actual forfeiture action was filed they should it doesn't matter it's in the hands of the government i think there it actually says  it seems ridiculous to give the money back only to file the forfeiture and retake it from them but to deprive somebody of their funds during that time period the use of enjoyment perhaps they could have used the money to hire an attorney during that time period whatever the case if the government ultimately was unable to ultimately was unable to gain possession of the funds back they would just be able to obtain a judgment against them i think the only way to give meaning to the word shall return the money  in subsection f of ninety three is to is to require the dismissal of the government doesn't ultimately return the money with regards to the connection substantial connection to the crime charge february twenty sixth through june june twelfth two thousand and twelve that money should have been returned to mr brewer and it wasn't returned to mr brewer and effectively there is no remedy for a claimant for the fact that they were  that's come up as a potential remedy the only two remedies i'm aware of that no shared interest rates are terrible i think it would have been you know twenty dollars or something like that for those four months but from what i'm aware of the district court of puerto rico has indicated a dismissal i think the ninth circuit actually said that the intrusion was was not warranted the government could have taken possession of the money and so you know they've adopted the remedy that you know they've essentially dop of the remedy that it doesn't matter that the statute says shall our  proposed solution i think is what it actually gives meaning to all of the words within the statute with regard to the substantial connection to this crime exact words remarkably mr brewer could have left at this time and he continued to talk to the officer continued to speak to him gave him permission to search the car he wasn't acting like a person who was engaged in illegal activity there wasn't an odor of marijuana around the car when he stopped it was only when he smelled marijuana which they always smell a strong odor of marijuana i don't know why they don't just spell marijuana i don't i've never actually read them say i just smell marijuana it's always the strong odor there's no actual connection of marijuana here the only connection  is actually mr brewer on the stand admitted that he had smoked marijuana the day before hand and you know quite frankly i don't see where the government's ever alleged a reasonable story of where there was a a  of violation they've essentially said that there's a cashier and the dog alerted to the dog alerted to drugs and then the officers testimony that they smelled marijuana there's no i mean i can't come up with a story that makes sense there's no question mister that's probably the most difficult thing the judge gossett just didn't find didn't find mr burke credible but the facts that were uncontested i think are sufficient to overcome that mr brewer started off schonberg illinois there's no question that he lived there and i don't think that there's any question that he was traveling from schomberg to california and he was carrying carrying this cash with him there's not even been speculation of what the story would have been that would have that would allowed for this to be a substantial transaction was he conducting that sell some marijuana taking the cash back to california i mean this i don't see the story that makes sense is he going to california to purchase the marijuana  pocket that hadn't occurred to me actually when i add it all up the if you look at the amounts total from his bank statements i mean this guy opened up his bank records for a period of four years and said hey look at this there's no evidence of him regularly travelling across the country there's no evidence of him that would have indicated he was in the drug trade if you added up all of his withdrawals they added up to about sixty four thousand five hundred dollars and if you take the amount seized i mean that up to about sixty six thousand dollars so if you take the amount seized with a thousand dollars they actually add up pretty much within two hundred dollars to what had actually been withdrawn from his bank accounts over the course of over the course of those four years in fact if i were to cite a case that this was closest to one i'm sorry it wasn't my brief because it wasn't decided until about twenty days after it was submitted would be the united states the forty thousand one hundred dollars you know there was some evidence of some evidence the literature regarding it there was a minor lied to the officer you know in this particular case mr brewer has post traumatic stress disorder that led to his hoarding of the cash of course he distrust the government and you know that's that's why he doesn't necessarily tell the author about the money and the one thing you can't say is that that's completely unreasonable position of his i mean as soon as the government found out about this money that he was hoarding that they took it from him and so his distrust of the government was at least partially based in reality  you know the government did attempt to distinguish this in their brief by saying that the only two distinctions they drew was the dog sniff that seems like a distinction without a difference is in forty eight thousand one hundred dollars there was actual marijuana in the car certainly a drug dog would have would have indicated on that actual marijuana versus this smell of marijuana that was lingering like the smell of a pizza is the officer put it in then more th one hundred dollars there were two separate areas of marijuana the gentleman had two grams on his part you know up by his driver seat and he had a glass jar where he had and he was seventeen point five grams of marijuana so i mean there were two spaces in that car and  v and so there's not and i don't see the difference between this case and you know the united states versus forty eight thousand one hundred dollars you know in fact in our case we actually presented you know once again his full bank records indicating indicating where the money came from showing that he didn't have a history of traveling across the country which wouldn't perhaps indicate that he was a drug mule and you know additionally there was some evidence presented of his post traumatic stress disorder which would indicate which would justify his hoarding of cash  you know when you go through these cases and you read all of them everybody who some of these money this these monies they all say why do you keep this money i don't trust the government i don't don't trust banks some of them are truthful some of them aren't but ultimately the only reason to keep this kind of money in cash is because you don't trust the government because you don't trust banks i'll touch briefly just on the innocent owner in the in the eighth amendment violation you know with regard to the innocent owner once again mr brewer showing where all this money came from he he illegal activity and what the fine is and you know it was recognized that the that the forfeitures can be considered a fine that would would justify an eighth amendment analysis and in this particular case there's there's absolutely no crime to compare this to  we don't know how much marijuana we're talking about we don't know if he's a drug mule we don't know we don't have any connection to any alleged crime but also to deprive them of you know in excess of sixty three thousand dollars without anything to tie it  to you know mr brewer i guess admitted to smoking marijuana the night before i think in nebraska that carries a three hundred dollar fine so you know maybe that's a proportional proportional remedy but lots of questions i'll reserve what little time i thing that the trial court could look to to make an excessive fines analysis and there's simply no other evidence that the claimant put on which would rebut an excessive fines challenge all he did was say this is my money and there were and i was in charge of the crime that's not an excessive fines challenge at least according to judge gossip and if you look at the record there was never the words excessive fines or just proportionality were never even mentioned during the trial so to say that the judge might take that back they were in the pretrial conference order but it wasn't talked about during the trial so there was an issue about it in the pretrial conference or setting forth what the issues would be a trial and then like i said mr brewer didn't put on any of that evidence so judge gossett i submit was completely correct in that because the claimant didn't put any of that evidence on and there was no excessive it was an excessive fine court has given us is what set out and dodge caravan and there there's a lot of elements there almost all of them have to do with the criminal side of it how much dope is involved how long did not believe mr brewer to say that mr brewer essentially said i've been in the military everything was paid for and when i got out of the military i live with my parents or live with friends and i didn't pay any bills and i saved up every i believe the testimony was seventy five to ninety percent of my paycheck when i was in the military and here's my list of what i've received from two thousand and seven to two thousand and twelve and then lo and behold holy cow that adds up to courtroom he has heard the cadence of his voice he was he saw it all and he chose not to believe it and and there were other other things that mr brewer said that would  be considered lack credibility because they were either uncorroborated herself subs or self serving the first time the deputy went till asked mr brewer if there's any money in the car he says no no no money in the car then after the money is found well yeah there is money in the car and then he tells the story i'm in school full time and i found out about this house deal so i took all my thousand dollar bundled bundles of money took them out of my safe threw him into three separate grocery sacks threw  into a backpack that smelled like marijuana and took off to california because i'm a young man and i've got an investment opportunity even though this man this same young man has little or no knowledge of real estate and he's going to invest in this stuff up going to take this opportunity to invest at his uncle's behest her with his uncle's advice and he doesn't even know the name of the man from whom he's going to buy it and while he's taking that journey he's going to be so poor that he has no money so he's going to sleep alongside the road in restaurants or maybe in his car he tells the deputy he thinks he has eight hundred dollars in his pocket when actually he's only got he's actually has a thousand dollars in his pocket as very little money in his wallet i submit that when you're that poor you know exactly how much money you have in your pocket and how much is in your wallet he mr brewer tell says during the trial that the reason he lied to the deputy dept he went till about haven't a large sum of money in the vehicle is because he was afraid deputy wintle would steal from him  brewer said that he didn't know deputy went to had never been around and he went on before i had no reason to really believe that other than the fact that i'm from chicago and chicago cops are bad this from a man who was a military police officer in the military i submit that judge gossett had before him such as he called lacking incredible statement that he his decision that mr brewer was not an instant owner was not the grid in the brief on january ninth two thousand and twelve those notices said the claim date the date by which mr brewer's claim had to be received by da would be feb thirteen receive mr brewer's claim on march twenty one two thousand and twelve then just to come full circle the united states complaint forfeiture complaint the case we're here on now was filed june twelfth two thousand and twelve h those are the facts and there's no no facts in the record about why there's such a time lag between but i submit to were off the paperwork that mr brewer had his own car or on his own person like his driver's license his driver's license was the one in palatine illinois car pay car insurance paperwork was the one on cambria drive in which is ultimately where he received it and then this does sound strange that this other person named mark buying or are being or be i e any are would be noticed at mr brewer's address but that's how the vehicle registration paperwork was so those are the those are the those are the actions of the da but judge judges the statute at issue ninety three little way than one and capital way than roman numeral little little roman numeral for says money seized by the local law enforcement officer turned over to a federal law enforcement agency for federal forfeiture notice shall be sent not more than ninety days parties of the action and afford those parties the opportunity to present objections i submit that once all those notices came back from da on the january ninth offices and then the publication was made i submit d n a going forward with its administrative forfeiture because it gave the notice as it was required to the addresses that were associated with mr brewer coming out of his own vehicle and they published but instead the e a a chose to do it one more time and your honour's the final issue is the substantial connection to drug trafficking i i have been to this court time and time again that this court has said its words are bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency combined with other suspicious circumstances supports a connection between the money and drug trafficking we've got a large amount of currency in this case in the forty eight thousand one hundred dollar case that you issued this summer this court called forty eight thousand one hundred a large sum so the money at issue here today is more than that bundled sixty four bundles each folded in half held by a rubber band thousand dollars bundle easily transferable just like both  wrapped in three plastic grocery sacks inside of a backpack that smelled of marijuana what are the other suspicious circumstances again mr brewer lied to the deputy that's been important to this court in the past for whatever the reason whether it's because he's afraid of police officers or whether it's because all my god now it's been found but the bottom line is a law enforcement officer asked mr brewer if there's any money in the vehicle over ten thousand dollars a which i've gone over before about me is in school he has no job so he decides to just take off right away to california with all this money that he has the presence of mind to wrap into three plastic grocer throw in the backpack and take off it the words that you used in forty eight thousand one hundred dollars were that burden bundling concealment large amounts of currency and applying common experience considerations what what if i just may finish your honour's what what mr brewer told judge gossett about the source of the money and why he was going out to california o be quickly i want to address just pretty much just one issue there she keeps talking about concealment and i want to compare the concealed in this case to the concealment in other cases i mean in the forty eight thousand one hundred case it was at least in a plastic ziploc bag in sort of the two other main cases regarding forfeiture for the circuit united states versus one hundred twenty four thousand seven hundred and united states versus eighty six thousand some odd eighty four thousand six hundred fifteen dollars in the first case was  the money was wrapped in aluminum foil in a plastic bag in a cooler in the backseat the amount of concealment there were significantly greater than some grocery bags and then in the eighty six that eighty four thousand six fifteen it was actually in vacuum sealed bags i think there's a fundamental difference there between that and