[00:00:02] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:00:05] Speaker 01:
I'm David Michael.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
I represent the claimant, Oak Porcelli, in this matter.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
The defendant currency is a defendant.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
I think the best way to approach this in the time we have is I want to discuss three things.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
One is Article 3 standing, compliance with discovery, the Rule G6, and my client's Fourth Amendment motions that he's filed.

[00:00:31] Speaker 01:
I think there's no dispute about the procedures, the arrest, the stop, the seizure of the money, and that's something that I want to get past and just get into the legal issues.

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
But I want to make sure that I always get reminded, and I believe the court should get reminded of that, that this is a forfeiture proceeding.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
And it's done pursuant to CAFRA and Rule G, and even it existed before CAFRA in 2000, that all the rules on forfeiture cases should be strictly construed against the government.

[00:01:02] Speaker 01:
And that's what the Supreme Court said way back when.

[00:01:05] Speaker 01:
Forfeitures are disfavored.

[00:01:07] Speaker 01:
and forfeiture laws are strictly construed against the government.

[00:01:10] Speaker 01:
And I believe that we always have to keep an eye on that when we discuss any of the issues that are involved.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
Let me ask you a kind of more high-level question, which is just how you think these proceedings are supposed to unfold in the district court.

[00:01:24] Speaker 00:
So, you know, your client had a verified statement saying he owned this cash that was found in the vehicle.

[00:01:32] Speaker 00:
You got some interrogatory responses.

[00:01:35] Speaker 00:
You didn't respond to everything.

[00:01:36] Speaker 00:
You did respond to some things.

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
What's supposed to happen?

[00:01:40] Speaker 00:
How do you think this should have gone in terms of the sequencing of these issues about ownership and then the motion to suppress?

[00:01:50] Speaker 01:
Well, the first issue, I think, is to establish Article 3 standing.

[00:01:56] Speaker 01:
I think that's the primary concern that is required in any of these forfeiture proceedings.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
And it's really an important issue and a lot of people fail Article III standing.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
But I think all the courts are uniform that to establish Article III standing, all you have to have is the property is seized from your possession and that you claim ownership.

[00:02:16] Speaker 01:
And you judicially claim it and you administratively claim ownership of that property.

[00:02:19] Speaker 01:
All the circuits, the 9th circuit, the 8th circuit, the 7th circuit, the 6th circuit, have all- I mean, Article 3 standing for what?

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
To proceed in the forfeiture?

[00:02:29] Speaker 00:
I mean, this is a weird standing is being used in a weird sense here, because it can mean your ability to keep litigating a claim.

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
It also can mean, do you have a right to this?

[00:02:42] Speaker 00:
And I think that's where the issue is here, is what is the basis for saying your client has a right to the money?

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
Well, I think that's something that the court has to decide, but in order for the client to be present in court and to assert the issues, he has to first establish this Article 3 standing.

[00:03:04] Speaker 01:
But Article 3 standing is not a heavy burden.

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
It's easy to meet.

[00:03:09] Speaker 01:
If the property ceases from your possession and you file all the appropriate claims for the property, both administrative and judicial, then you have, according to the courts that have ever decided that issue of Article 3 standing, you have Article 3 standing.

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
So let's assume that you have shown Article 3 standing, at least at this stage of the proceedings.

[00:03:28] Speaker 00:
What was supposed to happen next?

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
There are certain rules.

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
Obviously, there are things that can happen.

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
You can have a motion to suppress herd in forfeiture proceeding, and you can proceed with discovery.

[00:03:44] Speaker 01:
There is a Rule G6 that allows the government to initiate discovery and certain types of interrogatories and requests under the forfeiture statutes, under CAFRA, the new CAFRA statutes.

[00:03:59] Speaker 01:
And that purpose of the Rule G6, which I think is abused in many cases,

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
The only purpose for Rule G6 in queries are to establish Article III standing to make sure that whoever is making a claim for the property has Article III standing.

[00:04:16] Speaker 01:
And that's what I think is the limited purposes of Rule G6, and I think that the courts support that.

[00:04:21] Speaker 01:
As a matter of fact, I think if... Okay, but let's just assume you're right about that.

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
Let's assume that...

[00:04:26] Speaker 00:
Either you satisfied Article 3 standing at this stage because of the sworn statement, the interrogatory responses, then what's supposed to happen?

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
Then there's a rule, G8.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
And rule G8 allows a claimant to seek to suppress the rez that was seized.

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
It's a motion to suppress, typical.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
It's what criminal defendants have a right to, and it's been codified in CAFRA that a claimant can proceed with a motion to suppress, if he's got standing, of course.

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
But generally, the person who's making the claim has standing, because when they claim ownership of the property, it's either seized from their possession or seized from their bank account.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
or a thief from their home, wherever it is.

[00:05:10] Speaker 01:
In a vehicle, a lot of this stuff is vehicle interdiction because there's a program of vehicle interdiction that law enforcement practices in this country.

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
So he can file a motion to suppress, and there's a rule that provides for that.

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
It says any person who's faced a Fourth Amendment issue can file a motion to suppress.

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
And that's what Mr. ... Now, was a district court required to do that, or could the district court have just held further proceedings on your client's ownership?

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
In other words, here, I mean, I think there's a legitimate question as to how your client owned this huge amount of money that was just found packed in the car on a highway, right?

[00:05:47] Speaker 00:
And so he claims it was based on his work in the movie industry.

[00:05:50] Speaker 00:
Should we not have further proceedings on that first, just to pressure test that discovery and otherwise?

[00:05:59] Speaker 01:
Well, at some point in time, maybe.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
the fourth amendment is an important consideration in forfeiture litigation and of litigated many many fourth amendment issues in my history with forfeiture litigation.

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
It's a right that any defendant has in a criminal case and it's a codified right that a claimant has in a forfeiture proceeding.

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
It's right there in the rule, rule GA.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
But what tells us, I'm thinking about the sequence of this in the district court, what tells us

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
how the district was supposed to proceed here in which order the motion to suppress or these lingering questions about ownership

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
I think that the rules say that the government can do a limited inquiry prior to any determination of a motion to suppress.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
And that limited inquiry is established in the rules, rule G6.

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
What is that limited inquiry?

[00:06:55] Speaker 01:
The limited inquiry is only to determine Article III standing.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
That's the purpose of it.

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
And that's why that rule exists, because anybody can make a claim, judicially or administratively.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
And the government should have a right to ferret out false claims, claims that are not rooted in Article 3.

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
That's what it's mainly about.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
That's all it's about.

[00:07:17] Speaker 01:
So we've given the government, when CAFR was written, it gave the government the ability to ferret out claims that don't have any basis in law, all right?

[00:07:26] Speaker 01:
Or in fact, actually.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
So it can ferret out people that don't have Article 3 standing.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
And that's legitimate.

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
I have no problem with Rule G6 special interrogatories.

[00:07:36] Speaker 01:
The problem is that some district courts, I have to admit, have allowed the government to turn a Rule G6 special interrogatory into general discovery and ask the claimant everything about where the money came from, who are you, where did you get it, what are your defenses, what did you do, and we resisted that.

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
Could the district court have said, you know, let's have a phased discovery approach to this.

[00:08:07] Speaker 00:
Let's first have discovery on the question of whether Mr. Porcelli owns this cash.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
He has stated a prima facie claim for that, let's say, but we need to have document discovery, more interrogatories outside of the special rules.

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
Let's resolve that question first, and then if we need to, we'll get to the motion to suppress.

[00:08:28] Speaker 00:
Could the district court have done that?

[00:08:31] Speaker 01:
No, I don't think that the district court should do that, and I don't think that the law says that the district court can do that.

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
A motion to suppress is a critical part of the forfeiture proceedings.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
And even before CAFRA, I mean, I litigated a case six years before CAFRA in the Ninth Circuit.

[00:08:49] Speaker 01:
and motion to suppress was something you have a right to.

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
Because unless you litigate a motion to suppress, you will never know what evidence is admissible in a forfeiture proceeding.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
And that's critical, and it's the Fourth Amendment.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
So the way CAFR was created, it allows the government to make any inquiry it wants with the rule of G6 special interrogatories to ferret out people who don't have Article III standing.

[00:09:14] Speaker 02:
But Kent, I understand you're saying you met Article III standing at this stage by submitting a declaration saying it's mine.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
But we can always assess Article III standing at any stage of the case.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
And the government may challenge Article III standing at summary judgment or even at trial or after trial.

[00:09:31] Speaker 02:
So why can't they use rule G6 to get that information even at the early stage?

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
Because if you look at the text of the rule, it does say it's limited to claimants' identity and relationship to the property.

[00:09:42] Speaker 02:
But it says it can be served.

[00:09:44] Speaker 02:
any time after the claim is filed and before discovery is closed.

[00:09:48] Speaker 02:
So it seems like G6, you can serve it any time, even at late stages of the cases or early, as long as it's related to standing.

[00:09:56] Speaker 02:
So if the government here obviously doesn't believe the declaration that your client submitted.

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
So why can't the government serve this?

[00:10:03] Speaker 02:
And even if you met standing at this pleading stage, they can get discovery because they may challenge it at summary judgment.

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
Well, there is some important things to determine in Rule G6 special interrogatories.

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
We agree.

[00:10:16] Speaker 01:
You have to establish that that person has what's called Article III standing.

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
And there's a whole body of law that determines what Article III standing is and what you need to do to comply with Article III standing.

[00:10:27] Speaker 01:
It's not just some vague concept.

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
And Article III standing has been determined in this circuit and in about five other circuits that have addressed the issue that if you have property,

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
that sees from your possession, and you claim ownership of that property, that's Article III standards.

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
It's not demanding.

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
Well, at the pleading stage, but you can always challenge Article III standing at any time.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
Well, at summary judgment, you mean?

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
For instance?

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
Or after trial, during trial, any time.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
Yeah, well, this circuit has said that you have Article III standing all the way up to summary judgment.

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
But even so, and that may be true, but right after he is able to establish that he has Article III standing, which all the courts have said he has, initially, in regards to Rule G6,

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
then Rule G-8 says that he has a right to file and hear a motion to suppress.

[00:11:23] Speaker 01:
The Fourth Amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
The Supreme Court said that a long time ago.

[00:11:28] Speaker 02:
The text of the rule, Rule G-6, doesn't limit when, I mean, all it says is as long as it's after the claim is filed and before discovery is closed, they can serve discovery.

[00:11:37] Speaker 02:
So I understand your point about that, but in terms of a discovery rule,

[00:11:41] Speaker 02:
You can serve at any time as long as it's related to the claimant's identity relationship to the property.

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
So I'm kind of viewing this as more of a discovery dispute.

[00:11:49] Speaker 02:
And I understand your argument that may be a little bit unfair.

[00:11:52] Speaker 02:
You're putting, you know, front loading some of these things, but just by the text of the rule, it seems like the government can do this.

[00:11:59] Speaker 01:
Yeah, but you know, in the real world, that's not what happens.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
In the real world, what happens is that if you do the rule G6 inquiry initially, which the government always does, as the counsel will tell you, and he establishes that he has Article III standing, that Article III standing doesn't go away.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
It's not like you have to have some further Article III standing.

[00:12:21] Speaker 00:
And especially in a case like this.

[00:12:22] Speaker 00:
This is where I think we're having a disagreement or some dissonance in this, because

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
There's Article 3 standing to keep going in the case.

[00:12:31] Speaker 00:
But I mean, here we're talking, in other words, to keep your client having a presence in these forfeiture proceedings and an ability to object.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
But that doesn't answer the question of, does your client actually own the $1.1 million in cash that was found in a rental vehicle traveling across an interstate?

[00:12:49] Speaker 00:
There's a substantial question as to that.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
And if it turns out he does not own this, then he doesn't have standing in the true sense, because this is not his money.

[00:12:58] Speaker 01:
No, I think you're conflating standing with the merits issue, and I think that's wrong.

[00:13:04] Speaker 01:
I think that standing is a primordial issue that has to be decided initially, and it's Article III standing.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
It's not proof that you're going to win the case.

[00:13:13] Speaker 01:
It's only Article III standing.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
Once you get past Article III standing, then you get into litigation of the case.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
And what's the first thing you get to do in a litigation of a forfeiture case, according to the US Supreme Court, is you can file a motion to suppress.

[00:13:27] Speaker 01:
Fourth Amendment applies to forfeiture proceedings.

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
The US Supreme Court said it a long time ago in 1910.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
No, I mean, clearly you can file a motion to suppress, but I guess what I'm trying to figure out is when how is the district court supposed to sequence these things and if there are if there are questions about serious questions about ownership as there are here.

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
Was a district court not permitted to say let's just have a phased approach where we deal with ownership first and then if there's.

[00:13:52] Speaker 00:
enough evidence of ownership to survive summary judgment, then I'll get to the motion to suppress.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
And I grant you that if the district court did that, it could not rely on evidence that was the subject of a pending motion to suppress.

[00:14:03] Speaker 00:
I don't think you could do that.

[00:14:04] Speaker 00:
I agree with you on that.

[00:14:07] Speaker 01:
I think your question has the answer in it, though.

[00:14:10] Speaker 01:
I mean, the sequence is

[00:14:12] Speaker 01:
Initial inquiry, first you make a claim.

[00:14:16] Speaker 01:
Initial inquiry about Article III standing.

[00:14:19] Speaker 01:
You pass Article III standing, then he has a right to file a motion to suppress.

[00:14:22] Speaker 01:
That's also in the statutes.

[00:14:24] Speaker 01:
That's also in Rule G-8.

[00:14:25] Speaker 01:
It's the same CAFRA statute as Rule G-6.

[00:14:29] Speaker 01:
It's right underneath Rule G-6.

[00:14:31] Speaker 01:
You do Rule G-6 inquiry as to Article III standing, then you can do Rule G-8 motion to suppress.

[00:14:36] Speaker 01:
That's how CAFRA was written.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
After that... I understand the motion to suppress part of it.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
But doesn't standing and merits merge at some point in time?

[00:14:47] Speaker 03:
Because if it can't be proven that your client owns the property, then you lose standing and you lose the case.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
And so don't they merge at some point in time?

[00:14:59] Speaker 03:
And so that begs the question of when in discovery the government can do the special interrogatories.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
I agree with you, except for the word, you lose standing.

[00:15:09] Speaker 01:
I don't think you ever lose standing, but it doesn't make any difference.

[00:15:13] Speaker 01:
When you get into a marriage determination in a forfeiture case, it's a regular battle.

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
It's a civil battle.

[00:15:18] Speaker 01:
You do discovery, you do motions to suppress, you do litigation, you do all the stuff that you do in any other civil proceeding, and the government can prevail if they can prove that that's not your money.

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
Or they can prove that it's illegal money, or they can prove that it's drug money, or money from some illegal conduct that justifies its forfeiture.

[00:15:36] Speaker 01:
But they have to prove that there's some statute, some law that allows them to forfeit that money.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
It's either proceeds from some illegal activity, or it tended to be used for some illegal activity.

[00:15:49] Speaker 01:
or illegal in itself, some money laundering, whatever.

[00:15:53] Speaker 01:
They've got all kinds of statutes that allow them to forfeit that money.

[00:15:57] Speaker 01:
That's a merits argument.

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
So what is your theory for why your client had all this money driving through Nevada legally?

[00:16:06] Speaker 01:
What was the question?

[00:16:08] Speaker 00:
What is your theory?

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
What theory will you argue that your client was in lawful possession of 1.1 million dollars in cash driving through Nevada in a rental car?

[00:16:21] Speaker 01:
I don't mean to laugh about that, it's a really serious question.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
But the fact is, is that we got so frustrated with the government and the court, frankly, saying that he had to completely answer all this stuff, is that we just ended up using the rule G6 as general discovery, and he answered all those questions.

[00:16:42] Speaker 01:
He indicated that he'd been in the movie industry for 15 years, that he had a legitimate business.

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
He gave them a website that they could inquire as to where he worked and what his business was and everything.

[00:16:53] Speaker 01:
He answered all the stuff that he didn't even have to answer, but he did because the court said that he had to keep answering questions that are beyond establishing Article III standing.

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
And he did, and you can look in the briefs.

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
He answered a whole bunch of questions about his legitimate business.

[00:17:12] Speaker 01:
And there's nothing wrong with his legitimate business.

[00:17:14] Speaker 01:
And he says he deals in cash with a lot of his business, as a lot of people do, as a lot of my clients do.

[00:17:20] Speaker 01:
And it feels like I have to push up against something that I don't need to push up against about people having large amounts of cash.

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
A lot of people deal with cash.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
the realms currency, you know, there's nothing wrong with cash.

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
And I think that it's improper and unfair to say that just because you have a lot of cash that that should be subject to forfeiture.

[00:17:46] Speaker 01:
The government's burden is much heavier than that.

[00:17:48] Speaker 01:
And I see that I'm way out of time.

[00:17:52] Speaker 03:
Isn't it such a low bar at the beginning to just make a verified claim that you own the cash or the property that's been seized and that allows you to have standing to begin the action?

[00:18:06] Speaker 03:
I would think that most anyone could actually say they own something that's been seized from them, whether they ultimately can prove it or not.

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
And so the special interrogatories seem to be able to get at the relationship between the money or the property and the person.

[00:18:26] Speaker 03:
And why wouldn't that be permissible at the beginning when it's such a low bar to start the case with standing?

[00:18:35] Speaker 01:
Well, if you look at all these forfeiture cases, especially 99% of the forfeiture cases that we litigate, it's always about money.

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
That's all the government cares about.

[00:18:46] Speaker 01:
That's why all these highway officers on the road are trained at this program called Desert Snow to learn how to interdict people.

[00:18:55] Speaker 01:
And they don't even want to interdict drugs.

[00:18:57] Speaker 01:
They don't care about that.

[00:18:58] Speaker 01:
They want to interdict money.

[00:18:59] Speaker 01:
And so most of these forfeiture cases, and if you look at the title of the cases, they're about the money.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
But we've litigated cases larger than this, and some cases $7 million, or cases of $2 million and everything.

[00:19:13] Speaker 01:
But the large amount of money is, I think,

[00:19:16] Speaker 01:
a hurdle that doesn't need to be crossed.

[00:19:20] Speaker 01:
There's no reason to say that because somebody has one million dollars in their possession, that that infers that that money's illegal or comes from some illegal source or it's going for some illegal purposes.

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
I think that's unfair.

[00:19:34] Speaker 01:
Judicially, it's unfair.

[00:19:35] Speaker 01:
Maybe it's a social concept that you can discuss, but judicially, it's unfair.

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
I mean, I don't think anyone's inferring anything other than to say this may warrant further exploration.

[00:19:45] Speaker 01:
because it's not something that people normally do agree at the right time and at the right time that they can jump on my client about further explanation is in a merits determination that's where the battleground is it's not article three standing and it's not you know special interrogatories

[00:20:05] Speaker 01:
He's passed that barrier, and you should allow him to pass that barrier.

[00:20:10] Speaker 01:
That's how the law works.

[00:20:12] Speaker 01:
And once he passed that barrier, then everybody puts their gloves on, and it's a nasty battle.

[00:20:17] Speaker 01:
And you can fight it out like any other civil litigation.

[00:20:21] Speaker 01:
The government can do discovery.

[00:20:22] Speaker 01:
We can do discovery.

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
The government can force him to produce anything that justifies his ownership of that money and do all the stuff that you have questions about.

[00:20:31] Speaker 01:
Why would somebody have a million dollars?

[00:20:33] Speaker 01:
And not just his answers to the special interrogatories, but general discovery where requests for production of documents of everything to support his claim of that money.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
But that's not something that happened here because we got cut off of this case at a time when he shouldn't have been cut off, okay?

[00:20:48] Speaker 01:
He has a right to pass Article III standing.

[00:20:51] Speaker 01:
He has Article III standing.

[00:20:53] Speaker 01:
And he has a meritorious motion to suppress that he wants to litigate.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
And he gets kicked out of the case way before he can even do that.

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
And you're right.

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
He's got to explain, ultimately, at trial or at motion for summary judgment, the justification for having that much money.

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
You're right.

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
But not at this stage.

[00:21:13] Speaker 01:
Not at the stage that he got removed from the case.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
I think you've exceeded your time, because we asked you a lot of questions.

[00:21:18] Speaker 02:
So you can have two minutes on rebuttal.

[00:21:20] Speaker 01:
Six minutes.

[00:21:21] Speaker 01:
I appreciate the court allowing me that extra time.

[00:21:34] Speaker 04:
Your Honour, Council.

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
The District Court correctly and properly dismissed Mr. Porcelli's claim under Rule C6CIA

[00:21:51] Speaker 04:
and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37A, B, and D. The case law clearly indicates that the judge can sequence it.

[00:22:07] Speaker 04:
And since the federal rules, supplemental rules, are part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, supplemental G1 actually says you can use those Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

[00:22:21] Speaker 02:
Can you, there seems to be, and we've intimated this, there seems to be a substantial overlap in forfeiture cases with Article III standing and the actual merits.

[00:22:33] Speaker 02:
And in other cases, like a tort case, obviously you have to show Article III standing, but then you could have discovery on damages, causation, et cetera.

[00:22:40] Speaker 02:
But here it seems like if you have an event diagram, they would be almost right on top of each other.

[00:22:48] Speaker 02:
As a practical matter, what would you seek discovery on the merits that you couldn't get through rule G6?

[00:22:57] Speaker 04:
A whole lot of things, Your Honor, because supplemental G, if you saw the ex-executive record where the supplemental interrogations were created, at the end of every question, we cited the case law of the Ninth Circuit District Court that said, these are the only questions you can ask.

[00:23:17] Speaker 04:
and both 133420 and 17 Coon Creek.

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
So what categories or what type of information would you seek on the merits that you couldn't do for Article III standing under G6?

[00:23:29] Speaker 04:
Under supplemental G6, according to the case law and the statutes, it says, claimants' identity in relationship to the property, one.

[00:23:36] Speaker 04:
Two, purpose to gather information that bears on Porcelli's standing.

[00:23:43] Speaker 04:
And three,

[00:23:45] Speaker 04:
to test the veracity of the claim when he says, I own it and I possess it.

[00:23:53] Speaker 04:
We can ask a lot more questions on the discovery in much more detail, but the questions we asked were tailored strictly for you.

[00:24:02] Speaker 02:
I know, but just give me some examples of what kind of interrogatories could you serve on the merits that you couldn't do under G6.

[00:24:08] Speaker 04:
Under federal rules of civil procedure, we can go fishing.

[00:24:12] Speaker 04:
to a certain point.

[00:24:13] Speaker 04:
We can ask broad questions and say, provide all this additional stuff, and as long as we show how it relates to the facts, we're able to do this.

[00:24:21] Speaker 04:
And so all of those type of questions are much broader.

[00:24:26] Speaker 02:
Can you give me an example again?

[00:24:27] Speaker 02:
That's the one thing I'm struggling with here, is it seems like if you don't have Article III standing, you can't, it's basically could terminate us with merits here.

[00:24:36] Speaker 04:
Well, just like the FTCA cases, if you do a 12b1 motion under Article 3 or statutory standing, you have the exact same issue that the court can tailor a set of interrogatories to address solely the standing issue of the plaintiff.

[00:24:56] Speaker 04:
And they can determine which of all of those, and they cut everything else just for the purpose of determining Article 3 standing.

[00:25:03] Speaker 04:
The difference is, under this procedure, they already created this procedure because, as a lot of cases say, it is fraught with false claims being filed in the asset forfeiture area.

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
Why do you think what was brought forward here by Mr. Porcelli was insufficient under our cases at this stage of the proceeding?

[00:25:30] Speaker 00:
Because we have cases like 133 million, right?

[00:25:33] Speaker 00:
These cases are difficult to remember because they're all different numbers.

[00:25:36] Speaker 00:
But that one, I do remember, 133.

[00:25:38] Speaker 00:
It talks about, at a motion-dismiss stage, you have to have an assertion of ownership verified.

[00:25:44] Speaker 00:
As summary judgment, it can be sufficient to have that, plus possession of the funds, which he did here.

[00:25:49] Speaker 00:
So why wasn't that sufficient just to then

[00:25:51] Speaker 04:
have more discovery on something.

[00:26:03] Speaker 04:
It says that we can zero in with these special interrogatories.

[00:26:07] Speaker 04:
And we were only asking specifically what his interest in them.

[00:26:13] Speaker 04:
Because of his multitude of statements before, where he first said he owned it, he then said he didn't own it, then he said he was an employee of 401 Productions, then he changed his position.

[00:26:25] Speaker 00:
This is all during the stop.

[00:26:26] Speaker 04:
That's all during the stop.

[00:26:27] Speaker 00:
Right, but they say, well, we have a motion to suppress that's either pending or we intend to file, so we shouldn't consider that.

[00:26:34] Speaker 04:
Well, the purpose of Septimile G6 is to determine with all of the statements they've made whether or not it's his.

[00:26:43] Speaker 04:
When he says it's not mine, I'm the freelancer who is taking the proceeds on behalf of a production company.

[00:26:53] Speaker 04:
I'm no longer the employer.

[00:26:54] Speaker 04:
And oh, by the way, I did it.

[00:26:56] Speaker 04:
And we keep it covert because Wall Street.

[00:26:58] Speaker 04:
Those are factors of telling us that we need to know with sufficient

[00:27:03] Speaker 04:
evidence under the supplemental rules to prove that the veracity is it is his money.

[00:27:09] Speaker 03:
So let me flesh this out a little bit.

[00:27:13] Speaker 03:
A claimant files a verified claim proper on Monday.

[00:27:17] Speaker 03:
The government suspects this is drug money and doesn't belong to the defendant.

[00:27:21] Speaker 03:
On Friday of that same week, can you file a G6 special interrogatory asking the claimant to prove his relationship to the money, that he actually owns it?

[00:27:33] Speaker 03:
Can you do that?

[00:27:34] Speaker 04:
If he's filed the claim, the answer is yes.

[00:27:36] Speaker 04:
We can do it.

[00:27:37] Speaker 04:
We don't have to wait for mission.

[00:27:39] Speaker 04:
Because of the history of forfeitures of claims being filed fraudulently with no interest.

[00:27:45] Speaker 04:
Let me give you an example.

[00:27:47] Speaker 04:
35 years ago, when I first started here doing forfeitures, a man calls up and says, I filed a claim on this money.

[00:27:55] Speaker 04:
My wife won a...

[00:28:00] Speaker 04:
at gambling at one of the casinos and walked away with $250,000.

[00:28:06] Speaker 04:
We celebrated that night.

[00:28:07] Speaker 04:
Then the next morning I got up.

[00:28:09] Speaker 04:
She had left and taken everything with me, including the money.

[00:28:12] Speaker 04:
So this money is the money that belongs to me that she won.

[00:28:19] Speaker 04:
Obviously, that isn't even close to the facts of what happened.

[00:28:24] Speaker 04:
So,

[00:28:26] Speaker 04:
We did a supplemental G6.

[00:28:29] Speaker 04:
Oh, no, it wouldn't have done it then.

[00:28:30] Speaker 04:
It didn't exist.

[00:28:31] Speaker 04:
We then moved

[00:28:33] Speaker 04:
to force the issue of what is your basis of say, it's yours, based on what she told, what he told us.

[00:28:39] Speaker 04:
Based on the history of this case, the government can at any time zero in to say, show that you have Article III standing and statutory standing.

[00:28:48] Speaker 04:
And in fact, that's what C8 says is the purpose and the statutes is this is to show that you have Article III and statutory standing.

[00:28:59] Speaker 04:
The answer is, because we can zero on that, and again, every question we asked was specific.

[00:29:05] Speaker 04:
Their case law in the Ninth Circuit, both in and in some of the district court cases within the Ninth Circuit, gives examples of where the question was too broad and should have been asked in the general one.

[00:29:16] Speaker 04:
I can't remember them off the top of my head right now.

[00:29:18] Speaker 04:
But if they're outside these very limited parameters, then it should not be.

[00:29:23] Speaker 02:
In forfeiture cases, is it the same as in other civil cases that you could serve just regular discovery after a Rule 26F conference?

[00:29:34] Speaker 04:
There is not a rule.

[00:29:36] Speaker 04:
When would you be able to serve just normal discovery apart from Rule 6G?

[00:29:40] Speaker 04:
We can file the special interrogatories any time.

[00:29:43] Speaker 04:
After the answers come back and we determine whether or not that is and whether he answered the questions, which in this case we clearly say he did not, then we are in the position of doing a scheduling order and we do discovery with 180 days

[00:30:03] Speaker 04:
under local rule and the civil rules of civil procedure.

[00:30:09] Speaker 02:
So just more concrete terms, when would you be able to serve normal discovery?

[00:30:14] Speaker 04:
After we met and did the preliminary order for a pre-order of discovery, discovery plan.

[00:30:19] Speaker 04:
That hasn't happened in this case at all.

[00:30:22] Speaker 04:
No, because we never got past the point of the question of does he have Article III in statutory steady.

[00:30:28] Speaker 04:
Now the government and the court never ruled at any time whether it had Article III standing or not.

[00:30:35] Speaker 04:
We were using supplemental G6 to determine based on the information he gave us.

[00:30:42] Speaker 00:
It just seems a little different than the hypothetical from your earlier part of your career where somebody just asserting a Ownership interest in some random funds.

[00:30:52] Speaker 00:
I mean here the money was in his car He was a rental car, but there is some nexus to ownership here, right?

[00:30:58] Speaker 00:
That's a little bit different than just some random person coming in saying oh, yeah that cash that was found in that car That's mine when you file a claim as he did it says if you are a possessor

[00:31:09] Speaker 04:
You have to tell us if there's a bailor, because if you're the Bailey, you have to.

[00:31:14] Speaker 00:
But he says he's an illegal owner.

[00:31:16] Speaker 00:
I know you dispute that, but I guess the issue to me is, how much does he have to come forward with at this point in the proceedings to then open the door to further discovery on some of these questions?

[00:31:28] Speaker 04:
His statement, most of the questions he didn't answer, but his statement, which I thought was the last one, the last one he submitted, said,

[00:31:38] Speaker 04:
I earned this money 10 years or before, and I ran it through Citibank account.

[00:31:44] Speaker 04:
Then he says, the very nice interrogatory, oh, by the way, I got a lot of cash, but I didn't run it through the Citibank.

[00:31:55] Speaker 04:
He did have to deposit the checks that he received in the entertainment business according to him.

[00:32:01] Speaker 04:
We're saying that does not tell us your relationship.

[00:32:06] Speaker 04:
It does not tell us if it's even your money.

[00:32:10] Speaker 04:
It still doesn't tell us because you've already told us in the process that it was somebody else's as an employer.

[00:32:16] Speaker 04:
And then more importantly, he was transporting money on behalf of somebody else, which by the way is a, and that's why in the case we independently determined through law enforcement that he didn't have a license

[00:32:31] Speaker 04:
to transport money in either state or under FinCET.

[00:32:38] Speaker 04:
Again, all of his stories that we were able to hunt down did not support his position.

[00:32:45] Speaker 04:
What I find most interesting also, and I can't resist this, is so I'm not just talking about the amount of money.

[00:32:55] Speaker 04:
I'm talking about 10 years or further back he made this money.

[00:33:00] Speaker 04:
in all that time he never spent it and when he traveled he would carry it in a snowboard money in the snowboard and

[00:33:10] Speaker 04:
in his Miss Pettix passenger's suitcase, which he first said was all his, then said it wasn't his, she said it wasn't, then she said it was her, but she didn't claim any of the money, she didn't know why the money was in there, she didn't pack it.

[00:33:24] Speaker 00:
Can we rely on this information that was gleaned from the stop when there's a claim that the stop was improper and that hasn't been resolved?

[00:33:33] Speaker 04:
that gives us only for the purpose of deciding that supplemental G6 should have been used.

[00:33:42] Speaker 04:
I don't know whether that's true.

[00:33:43] Speaker 04:
We don't know what any of that is true.

[00:33:45] Speaker 04:
That's why I said we haven't taken a position article three standing or statutory standing.

[00:33:50] Speaker 04:
Why?

[00:33:50] Speaker 04:
Because we use supplemental six to get that information.

[00:33:54] Speaker 04:
Let me quote again, the veracity of the claim.

[00:33:58] Speaker 04:
So we have a claim that says ownership and possession.

[00:34:03] Speaker 04:
his relationship to an identity.

[00:34:05] Speaker 04:
He doesn't ever provide that to us.

[00:34:07] Speaker 04:
And even when he provides a partial, he then takes it away in the next sentence, in the next interrogatory.

[00:34:13] Speaker 04:
He then discusses, we also have the ability to purpose together information that bears on his standing.

[00:34:24] Speaker 04:
That's what we did.

[00:34:26] Speaker 04:
He never answered them sufficiently so we could even make a determination.

[00:34:30] Speaker 04:
But that's not why the court

[00:34:34] Speaker 04:
dismissed it on Article 3 or Article Standing.

[00:34:37] Speaker 04:
The court said, I have ordered you to give a full, complete answers.

[00:34:43] Speaker 04:
Instead, under the statute, under the 17 Coon Creek Road and 133-420, they said you have to answer them.

[00:34:56] Speaker 00:
So what do you make of some of the language in the 133 million case, right?

[00:35:00] Speaker 00:
The, excuse me, 133,000 case.

[00:35:04] Speaker 00:
that assertion of ownership, combined with the claimant's possession of the currency at the time it was seized, would be enough to establish claimant's standing?

[00:35:12] Speaker 00:
Would or may be enough?

[00:35:14] Speaker 00:
Would be enough.

[00:35:15] Speaker 00:
Oh, would be enough.

[00:35:17] Speaker 04:
Seventeen Coon says maybe.

[00:35:18] Speaker 00:
I mean, would be enough, I suppose, without more.

[00:35:20] Speaker 00:
But still, how do you reconcile this language in this case with the position that you're offering here?

[00:35:27] Speaker 04:
Oh, I'm glad you asked that one.

[00:35:29] Speaker 04:
One second, Your Honor.

[00:35:29] Speaker 04:
Let me turn to...

[00:35:32] Speaker 04:
There is a distinct answer to this, and I'm going to quote it if I may, Your Honor.

[00:35:44] Speaker 04:
In 133-420, it talks about that, in fact, the discovery was beyond, some of the questions were beyond G6.

[00:35:52] Speaker 04:
So if you want to know what questions they are, Your Honor, I will reference to you, there's examples of that were beyond the allowed questions.

[00:36:05] Speaker 04:
It says, my interest in the defendant property is as the owner and possessor of said property with a right to exercise dominion control over this property.

[00:36:17] Speaker 04:
The government filed a motion to strike not under G6 for failing to answer, but under G8AO.

[00:36:32] Speaker 04:
understanding, Article III standing and statutory standing.

[00:36:36] Speaker 04:
That distinguishes it for that purposes.

[00:36:38] Speaker 04:
It doesn't distinguish on their explanation of G6.

[00:36:42] Speaker 04:
So, approximately on page 637, they say, wait a minute, the government, you brought an action under 8G8C4 standing, which is a separate line item of what you can do.

[00:36:58] Speaker 04:
You can also bring it under C5 if they did not follow those procedures.

[00:37:06] Speaker 04:
But it separately says you can also bring a motion to strike under C6, which is not as to standing, but as to refusing to answer the interrogatories fully.

[00:37:23] Speaker 03:
I'm going to go to what I... Can I ask you a question first, counsel?

[00:37:29] Speaker 03:
The G6A says that the government may file these special interrogatories.

[00:37:35] Speaker 03:
It says, limited to claimant's identity and relationship to the defendant property.

[00:37:40] Speaker 03:
Does relationship to the defendant property include proof of ownership?

[00:37:44] Speaker 04:
Yes, or possession, to show that he's not the Bailey.

[00:37:49] Speaker 04:
Because under C5, and again, we go to that to find out the answer to those.

[00:37:54] Speaker 03:
Well, he can show possession easily in most of these cases, because it's seized from them in a vehicle or whatever.

[00:37:59] Speaker 03:
But does that extend to requiring proof of ownership at the G6 special interrogatory stage?

[00:38:08] Speaker 04:
proof of standing of ownership of the property or possessory interest.

[00:38:15] Speaker 04:
Because possessory interest is not just if he has the money.

[00:38:18] Speaker 04:
Again, in his claim under C5, which we didn't address because we're just trying to find out the information, it says if you have a possessory interest, are you a bailor or bailee?

[00:38:31] Speaker 04:
Because if you're the bailor, if you're the bailee, then you must tell us who the bailor is and that that bailor has authorized you to defend his money.

[00:38:45] Speaker 04:
And that's in C5.

[00:38:49] Speaker 04:
To the point I wanted to get to is, as you read through on G6, starting in C,

[00:38:59] Speaker 04:
You will discover that it's very broadly, again, that it's just not relationship to the property, but it's also veracity of his claim.

[00:39:11] Speaker 04:
And the purpose to gather is to be able to determine whether he has Article III standing or statutory standing.

[00:39:20] Speaker 04:
They reject two of the arguments that has been presented to you by Mr. Percelli under C.

[00:39:28] Speaker 04:
It's approximately around footnote 33, 34.

[00:39:36] Speaker 04:
The government's interrogatories went beyond the scope of supplemental G6 in that he properly objected to them on that basis.

[00:39:46] Speaker 04:
Lewis invites us to interpret supplemental rule G6A narrowly

[00:39:54] Speaker 00:
What do you think would have been sufficient?

[00:39:58] Speaker 00:
What did he have to say to satisfy G6 at this stage?

[00:40:05] Speaker 04:
Well, was he a Baylor or Bailey?

[00:40:07] Speaker 04:
If he was a Bailey, who's the Baylor?

[00:40:11] Speaker 04:
I do not believe people can earn money a decade ago and not spend it for a decade.

[00:40:17] Speaker 04:
He does not show us how he got the money.

[00:40:20] Speaker 04:
He does not show us what his relationship is to the money.

[00:40:24] Speaker 04:
how and who and when.

[00:40:27] Speaker 04:
And there's case law in the Ninth Circuit and the district courts in the Ninth Circuit that say that is the purpose of supplemental G-6.

[00:40:35] Speaker 04:
We know nothing more today than we did when he was stopped on the road of what his relationship to that money is.

[00:40:42] Speaker 04:
He told us numerous stories.

[00:40:45] Speaker 04:
He still told us numerous stories, even in the interrogatories.

[00:40:50] Speaker 04:
So our answer is the reason why the judge dismissed it under sanctions, Rule 37, is because he never sufficiently provided facts, namely, where did he really get it?

[00:41:07] Speaker 04:
He tells us different stories at different times, even in the interrogatories.

[00:41:12] Speaker 04:
Then he adds things.

[00:41:13] Speaker 04:
Then he takes it away.

[00:41:15] Speaker 04:
My answer is he needed to provide us what was the relationship.

[00:41:19] Speaker 04:
How did he really get the money?

[00:41:20] Speaker 04:
The reason why I want to bring this out is, and by the way, again, as he actually talks about the Baylor, but I'll just paraphrase it because of time.

[00:41:37] Speaker 04:
They give an example, and Seventeen Kuhn,

[00:41:43] Speaker 04:
Coon something, Coon Creek, Coon Creek Road says.

[00:41:48] Speaker 04:
Gives an example of a case, and this is what he said.

[00:41:49] Speaker 04:
Well, she first said it was hers, and she said it wasn't hers.

[00:41:53] Speaker 04:
Then she said in the claim that it was hers.

[00:41:58] Speaker 04:
But she then amended and said, oh, by the way, on the claim.

[00:42:02] Speaker 04:
And again, that's about her claim, not about- All right, Council, you've exceeded time, so please wrap up.

[00:42:10] Speaker 03:
I just have one quick follow-up, if I could, before Judge Lee.

[00:42:15] Speaker 03:
Why shouldn't, as a matter of procedure, after a verified claim is filed, the court handle the motion to suppress first before the government can test the ownership of the property?

[00:42:28] Speaker 03:
Why is a matter of procedure isn't that the correct path, which is what the claimant is saying here?

[00:42:34] Speaker 04:
Because under Rule 8, if you look at the motion to suppress, it says

[00:42:40] Speaker 04:
the court can address it when the defendant shows it has standing.

[00:42:49] Speaker 04:
He never gave us sufficiency under C6 to provide us whether or not he had standing, Article III or standing.

[00:42:59] Speaker 03:
Doesn't the verified claim at the beginning count for initial standing anyway as opposed to ultimate standing?

[00:43:06] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure how he described that.

[00:43:09] Speaker 04:
Under the procedure supplemental C6 says the first thing we do, the very first thing we do, the government if they question standing is to subdue a supplemental

[00:43:22] Speaker 04:
interrogatories, and it says until the supplemental interrogatories are answered, until they are completed sufficiently to be able to address that issue, nothing else occurs.

[00:43:36] Speaker 04:
And if in fact he provides the information that is supplemental, then we're gonna move on to the rest of the documents.

[00:43:43] Speaker 04:
If he doesn't, we are going to move under 37 for the sanctions.

[00:43:49] Speaker 04:
Switching real quickly to the other, why did the judge sequence it?

[00:43:52] Speaker 04:
Because under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they actually say the court can sequence the order of things because under Rule 1 of the Federal Civil Procedure, it says the judges are to make sure the economy, efficiency, and the order of things to do as least expensive costs as possible.

[00:44:13] Speaker 04:
So in answer to those questions, Your Honor, she did, in fact,

[00:44:18] Speaker 04:
correctly and properly dismiss it because he did not answer supplementary aid.

[00:44:24] Speaker 04:
And her sequence of it gave her full jurisdiction.

[00:44:28] Speaker 04:
And in the brief it talks quite a bit about cases that generically the courts always have ability to control their docket.

[00:44:36] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:44:46] Speaker 01:
and i'm glad that the court brought them up first of all

[00:44:51] Speaker 01:
This is not a possessory interest case.

[00:44:54] Speaker 01:
My client's not a claiming possessory interest.

[00:44:57] Speaker 01:
He's claiming ownership interest.

[00:44:59] Speaker 01:
So all the rules that apply to somebody who's only claiming a possessory interest are completely irrelevant to this particular case, number one.

[00:45:06] Speaker 01:
Number two, when you asked about rule eight, that rule eight about having standing to pursue a motion to suppress doesn't require, it's not about article three standing,

[00:45:20] Speaker 01:
Rule 8 is about 4th Amendment standing.

[00:45:22] Speaker 01:
4th Amendment standing.

[00:45:23] Speaker 01:
That's the whole purpose of Rule 8.

[00:45:25] Speaker 01:
Has to do with 4th Amendment, not Article 3 standing.

[00:45:29] Speaker 01:
So I think that that was a kind of confused dialogue that I heard.

[00:45:34] Speaker 01:
Statements at the time of the seizure.

[00:45:36] Speaker 00:
Make sure I understand that distinction.

[00:45:38] Speaker 00:
So you're basically saying he has 4th Amendment standing because he was in the car?

[00:45:42] Speaker 00:
That's all we need to know?

[00:45:45] Speaker 00:
uh... fourth amendment standing is that you're claiming that there was an eagle illegal search of the car because the government didn't have probable cause to search the car okay but that has almost nothing to do with the ownership of the items that were in the car that's just saying anybody you know who who has uh... the driver has fourth amendment standing

[00:46:03] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:46:04] Speaker 00:
In a Fourth Amendment case.

[00:46:05] Speaker 01:
It has nothing to do with the ownership of the currency.

[00:46:08] Speaker 01:
It has to do with the Fourth Amendment, and that's why it's in Rule 8, okay?

[00:46:12] Speaker 01:
Fourth Amendment standing.

[00:46:14] Speaker 01:
Fourth Amendment standing.

[00:46:16] Speaker 01:
So you don't have to have some Article 3 standing.

[00:46:19] Speaker 01:
Two, statements at the time of the seizure.

[00:46:22] Speaker 01:
This court, I think, in the $999,000 case addressed that issue, okay?

[00:46:28] Speaker 01:
Statements address that time of the seizure.

[00:46:32] Speaker 01:
First of all, they're just law enforcement officers saying what happened, so they don't even have any relevance to the issues unless you put the person on the stand.

[00:46:40] Speaker 01:
But here's what this Ninth Circuit said in the $999,000 case.

[00:46:43] Speaker 01:
That evidence is not properly weighed against unequivocal assertion of ownership

[00:46:50] Speaker 01:
for determining the issue, existence of Article III standing.

[00:46:54] Speaker 01:
Statements at the time of the seizure are not admissible.

[00:46:57] Speaker 01:
They don't have anything to do with the assertion of Article III standing, and that's a $999,000 case.

[00:47:05] Speaker 01:
There was a Human Rights Commission case that I also litigated, where it says that the district court erred by considering claimants alleged prior inconsistent statements to negate his assertion of ownership at the pleading stage.

[00:47:19] Speaker 01:
So it's improper to bring forth what was said.

[00:47:22] Speaker 01:
What case was that?

[00:47:23] Speaker 00:
Human rights?

[00:47:25] Speaker 01:
That's 825 appendix 468, 9th Circuit 2020.

[00:47:31] Speaker 01:
Thanks.

[00:47:31] Speaker 01:
I think it's in our brief on that.

[00:47:36] Speaker 01:
And also, when you're talking about Rule G6, if you look at the Coon Creek case that was litigated in the Ninth Circuit, it says, if a claimant has Article III standing, compliance with Rule G6 is not a standing deficit.

[00:47:58] Speaker 01:
So you can't conflate rule G6 with Article 3 standing, and that's the problem that the court went through in this particular case.

[00:48:07] Speaker 01:
And I think that she was in error, her magistrate judge was in error, to trying to conflate the compliance with rule G6

[00:48:14] Speaker 01:
with Article 3 standing.

[00:48:16] Speaker 01:
The only purpose of Rule G6 is to determine whether or not somebody has Article 3 standing.

[00:48:20] Speaker 01:
That's what the laws say, that's what the courts say.

[00:48:22] Speaker 01:
You know, so also in the Seventh Circuit, claimants Rule G6 response that he owned property undisputably seized from him

[00:48:31] Speaker 01:
sufficient for Article III standing and for Rule G6.

[00:48:35] Speaker 01:
So the courts are pretty uniform in saying that, look, if you've got property that sees from your possession, you've got Article III standing, and that basically even satisfies Rule G6.

[00:48:44] Speaker 01:
That's broad, you know, but I think that the court does have a, there is a valid inquiry under Rule G6, but as I tried to say to the court, only for the purposes of establishing Article III standing.

[00:48:56] Speaker 01:
That's where Rule G6 exists.

[00:48:58] Speaker 01:
The rest of the battleground is in general civil litigation and no holds barred, as counsel has indicated.

[00:49:05] Speaker 01:
So that's why I'd like to make those points.

[00:49:07] Speaker 01:
Thank you for the time, Your Honor.

[00:49:08] Speaker 02:
Thank you both for the very helpful argument.

[00:49:10] Speaker 02:
That's an interesting case.

[00:49:11] Speaker 02:
The case has been submitted.