644 (1963); Cutshall v. Sundquist, 193 F.3d 466, 473 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 1554, 146 L.Ed.2d 460 (2000); United States v. Beaty, 147 F.3d 522, 524-25 (6th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1070, 119 S.Ct. 802, 142 L.Ed.2d 663 (1999). The burden is on the petitioner to show that double jeopardy attaches concerning a civil statute. The burden is heavy and requires the “clearest proof.” Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997). Double jeopardy has been frequently raised as an issue in the context of civil forfeitures. When a civil forfeiture proceeding is in personam in nature then it will be held to violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 331-33, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998)(<HOLDING>). However, when a civil forfeiture proceeding
holding that  2461 allows for criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of general mail fraud recognizing that the hallmark of an in personam forfeiture proceeding is one where the government proceeds directly against the person holding that while an original bankruptcy proceeding where the state is not named as a defendant is not a suit an adversary proceeding directly against the state would be holding that where an action is brought by the debtors at the initial proceeding the appeal of that action is not a continuing proceeding against the debtors holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture