my name is bruce locke and i represent lester simmons and this case this case is a situation in which the government wants to forfeit a million two hundred thousand dollars without having to prove that the money is actually subject to how the title to the money was health and therefore i think that he has trustee the proper claimant to the money he has the trustee holding the money the money was seized from him he's the proper  claim the money on behalf of the trust and the beneficiaries it's only in response to the government's argument the government says well the trust and so we should himself you can't i don't think the government can say we're going to do this just regard part of this but we're going to treat him still as if he's a trustee for purposes of making the claim there is no talking about whether he gets credit for the money they took from the bank accounts against the tax that now it's tax debt they also seized another three million dollars later on and did a jeopardy assessment and apply that to the ta tax evasion purposes and the courts and even a california court said even assuming that the trust was used for tax evasion purposes it's still a valid trust under california law and that anthem is a state law that's his daughter and the mother of the daughter he's not married to the mother of the cutter but those were the beneficiaries that trust would have been a valid trust under state law and its provisions would have applied trustee just like any other trustee he could do what the trustee can do and so the problem i have with the lower court's decision is that this seems to assume that if the trust is void so he his lawyer not me said well i want to make this clear that he's claiming the money as the trustee of the trust but that's how he was holding the money it's perfectly logical for him to claim the money because that's how we was holding it he was claiming that that money was his last money and they had put it into the trust but it was clearly his money and that within two within a very short period of time it was it would have been foolish to continue to and then i get to the problem well you didn't make a claim for the money reason it's like somebody knowing that there's growth in a suitcase and someone says this your suitcase and he says no but i think money was proble but i think he did make a claim for the money and saying i'm doing it as the trustee is just saying this is how i'm holding it i mean that's it's that's the title to which he held it he held it as trustee if i think  money he was holding it in trust for his kid i mean that he also used it to avoid taxes but he was still holding the money in trust and if he had died the day before they seized that the money would have gone in accordance with the terms of the trust to his daughter and to her mother and so i don't see i guess what i would say it is that a sham whether it's a sham or not depends upon the context in which you're examining that situation it can be a sham for income tax purposes we're going to disregard it but for purposes of who's holding the money and whose money belongs to the and under what terms it's a valid tru under state law and its terms should be follow thank you very much  carefully observed mr larkin his argument speaks it's a jump to tense about a lot of things that may or may not happen with respect to these assets these trusts mr simmons obligations under the stress and so forth the burden of demonstrating standing was at all times the trust burden but the only evidence presented to the district court showed that mr simmons held this they come after all my money they won't find it at just the purest used the first drop of all the money greg the government nevertheless finds the money and takes i think we're already down for there b correct we're down to there by stipulation but i don't think what mr blocks the commission answers now the question is whether to carry out my hypothetical case a little further it's the mother making the claim or the son making trustee under the deed of trust and there are no meetings and no records no nothing unless there's foreclosure under the terms of this these trusts and there were trust documents that are part of the excerpts of record both the trust document  characterize most trust relationships this is a strange case you know where when he has a trust account for a client doesn't hold meetings and he doesn't file tax returns sort marilee gets no income on the frost i confess i'm being led a little bit into some hypothetical you're saying and that's why i'm exploring it you're talking about holding meetings and filing returns is that we're talking about corporations we're talking about my my point isn't is that the trust not only the strong owners individual capacity undoubtedly could have contested the forfeit your liking trust funds and problem i'm sorry the newport coast trust funds and probably also the viking clubs trust funds the viking coast trust the bank account she fled to germany to avoid the tax charges leaving mr simmons as the only true owner potential true owner to both the newport coast trust funds and possibly also the viking trust fund if he could overcome the for the bank and the surviving child because trustees but the surviving child has no signature authority over the funds the bank has the signature authority and manages the money is this any  capacity was convicted of criminal tax evasion so there is no question absolutely no question but that these trust will be invalid because they were used to perpetrate a crime or to defraud the united states thank