some or all of the seized assets. The Court can not fault their diligence in asserting their right to a hearing and/or return of their property. Thus, the Court finds that claimants have more than done their part to assert their rights, and their efforts weigh in their favor in the four-part balancing test. The fourth and final element in the analysis is whether claimants have “been prejudiced by the delay.” $8,850, 461 U.S. at 569, 103 S.Ct. 2005. The “primary inquiry” into the existence of prejudice is whether the claimant’s ability to present a defense on the merits has been harmed. Id. This is not the only inquiry, though. The Court may also consider the financial burden placed on claimants as a result of the seizure. See United States v. Sharp, 655 F.Supp. 1348, 1352 (W.D.Mo.1987) (<HOLDING>). See also Jones, 38 F.3d at 323 (pointing out
holding that a court may conduct a fair use analysis as a matter of law where the facts are presumed or admitted holding that a tenured teacher who can be dismissed only for good cause has a legitimate claim of entitlement to his or her position and may not be deprived of it without due process of law holding that taxes are not private property that can be physically taken by the government holding that prejudice is only presumed if there is proof of an actual conflict of interest holding that prejudice  can be presumed where claimants are deprived of the use of their property by the government without justifiable cause for a period of twentythree months