that the Defendant Property was involved in her illegal money transmitting business and that the Defendant Property could not be from her wages from her work on the Dawn Princess. The Claimant baldly states that the Defendant Property in fact came from cash that her employer paid her for her services in addition to cash gratuities from Dawn Princess guests. Those self-serving factual assertions do little to shed light on any legitimate origin of the Defendant Property. See, e.g., United States v. $21,510 in United States Currency, 292 F.Supp.2d 318, 322 (D.Puerto Rico 2002) (reasoning that the “claimant’s income from his construction business is at best a weak explanation for $31,750.00 in cash found at his residence”); United States v. Dusenbery, 80 F.Supp.2d 744, 754 (N.D.Ohio 1998) (<HOLDING>) (citing United States v. Brock, 747 F.2d 761,
recognizing cause of action holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury recognizing the cause of action holding that in the absence of a prior indictment probable cause for arrest is determined by the facts in the sworn complaint holding that the absence of legitimate income supports the finding of probable cause in a forfeiture action