first we have most an argument and then the panel has decided to hear the cases out of the order that they're listed here which will become clear to you in the fullness of time the first case is on our most encounters united states versus georgina f morning morning or honors it please the court my name is randall pm for yossi and i represent georgina fisher and i want to thank you for the opportunity to be heard on this motion in this case ms fisher was deprived of her fifth and sixth amendment rights through violations by the prosecutor the government of the united states she is now without farms to fine counsel of her choice in this case because of those violations the magistrate judge in the case acknowledged that i understood that and gave her a remedy the remedy was dismissal of the case he recommended that remedy the district court judge rejected that recommendation and determined that miss fisher warranted no no remedy not addressing the key question is whether this is a final word or you know whether we have jurisdiction because this is not a final none of these are fine waters it will be reviewed at the time  ultimate appeal if there's a conviction your honor i'm that point it's our position that this is a this is point yes this is a final order in our opinion it is if the issue in the case to the fundamental conduct further conduct of this case miss the order is a dismissal or whether there's a dismissal here but it's really a remedy to to cure m fisher of the fact that she no longer has farms to fund counsel of choice in the case under section twelve ninety one a requirement there is a requirement for a final order the courts have held that that requirement is a it should be a practical one and not a technical one there should be a balance between weighing the the inequities or the it inconveniences of piecemeal litigation before this court counsel should continue in the case based on that is it was discussed i'm interlocutory appeal we have an obligation to miss fisher under bennett versus casey and we want to honor that obligation but the government is is that all of a lable for review on a final judgment because mr fischer is going to be without counsel and then sure if he is you'll apply for appointed counsel that is a fundamental right she she she has the right to counsel of her choice not just to appointed counsel you're either she is being deprived of a constitutional well if she can afford coun she can get counsel of her choice if she can't there will be funds available to get her counsel like every other defendant in the federal courts why she different your honor she has the right to counsel of choice if think if every defendant without funds can go to our c j panel and pick the counsel they want in this case the under the gravel men of this case is the government's restraint of her own assets to find her counsel of choice the government took restrain even if you are right and even if she gets convicted and then takes an appeal why can an appellate court say just as you're saying now she was denied counsel over choice in the matter must be retried case goes forward and she doesn't have counsel of choice none of these issues may ever be addressed was that you asked if she's convicted you can be addressed without counsel of her choice she can be states for park versus parker was addressed an interlocutory appeal because of the same deprivation a risk of deprivation of that right we would respectfully submit that in this case that this case is no different from those other cases please the court my name is joseph kerry shot ski i represent the united states on this appeal miss fisher's motion should be denied and this appeal should be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction and you or yes your honor we filed a response we filed a response in which we said that there is no jurisdiction and this should be this this motion should be or that the motion should be denied and the appeal dissipates the other side file a notice of appeal and  the motion for leave to permission to file the appeal simultaneously know filed the notice of appeal shortly thereafter i would have to look at that just at the docket your honor to determine exactly when but it was shortly thereafter that they filed this claim or a claim under the speech and debate clause under which a defendant has the right not to be tried this is an instance where if there was a violation here it can be it can be brought up on proceedings the claim is that she does not have access to counsel of her choice because her funds have bent the funds that she did have a strain for you well they were restrained but not anymore and that's why this case was lifted it was or the for the court to enter any orders right that's correct before and then and there was pretty effective they could have at that point  restricted access to the property so it could not be used at that point the fine and that's what the whole monsanto hearing or the the monsanto proceedings were about whether or not the government should be required to release th property so that it could be used to fund the defense at after these protracted proceedings the government decided that this case of gone off the rails and decided look we're just we're just going to lift  pendants and let's get on with the case that's what happened then what he did then after that this motion to dismiss came and ms access to her will she has access to the to the property i understand the argument that counsel is making that those funds have been depleted because of the litigation that has occurred thus far however even if that's the case as your honor as as your honor have have indicated the that does not restrict ms ms fisher's ability to apply for a sign of counsel she's not going to be doing is on her own she is going to be as this case goes forward she will be she will have access to counsel be it counsel of her choice or assign counsel under the c g a the issue here is whether or not she's entitled to have this case dismissed when the initial  request that she had was i want my money back i want my house back so i can use that to fund my defense then she got the house at that point apparently used used at the party and i'm glad your honor said apparently judge walker because if that's that's the representation that's been made and i assume as a as an officer of the court it's accurate but the district court didn't make any findings that i'm hearing here is that this is a motion to dismiss the indictment because the client has run out of funds to counsel and yes your honor and that that that's what that's what it is understanding that the that the claim that's being made is that it was government misconduct which of course the district court never found that there was any government conduct either before the before the grand jury or in conducting the litigation the district court assume for the sake of argument that if there was a violation whether dismissal is the appropriate remedy and it found no the district court said dismissal is not the appropriate remedy the appropriate remedy is release the property which happened long ago in this case so this court lacks jurisdiction