it please the court my name is nick ackerman i represent the appellant dan zong we've reserve one minute for rebuttal we have set out in our papers at the district court erred on a number of critical points that you want we want our client to be released on bail we want this court to actually enter in order releasing him on bail i think the critical thing here we don't want us to send something back for weakens to the open of the consideration he you do not want us to send this back so that the district or can we consider anything you want us to order your client released on built in decisions that's correct your honor system thickly because she said if the bail issue were opened it would find in favor of detention i think it would be a nonstarter to go back with a reconsideration i mean in fact they're the real critical point here is on the bottom line is that the are clearly a combination of conditions are that would assure mr song's presence in court a pretrial services has recommended home confinement we have proposed an added layer of protection through guidepost solutions  group of former assistant u s attorneys from both the southern eastern district they have a perfect track record in assuring that defendants show up for trial significantly the government does not attack guidepost solutions ability to do this instead it attacks the propriety of the use of a private security firm but it cannot dispute that judge reggie in your opinion in some money approved the use of a security firm to monitor home detention and circumstances that are nearly identical to these that is security firm can be paid to monitor the home confinement does not somehow transform often does that happen it a bit actually i think we've we've we've listed a number of those in our papers roger this is not an unusual circumstance and part of the argument here is well how can rich defendants have the ability to go out and get a private security firm but as judge reggie pointed out  nonny it goes the other way too it cuts both ways in the sense that if the person didn't have access to funds then they would more likely be out on bail so it goes both ways and it's certainly a proper  circumstance in this district and the circuit i mean this is happened a number of times which we've we've pointed out to the court never done that directly to you know it is just we did it with either ordering  that there's a plan in place to do that now the district court wouldn't even hear us on the plan that we had she wouldn't hear us and all of the new facts that we had uncovered since the time of the last hearing before judge johnson and that's why i think it's extremely if this goes back to the district court that this court retained this panel retain stiction to ensure that this happens exactly as happened in said nonie extremely important in this case that there is some risk of flight i to the extent that there is a risk in flight we have covered that in the sense that pretrial services is recommended if you're home detention we've added i'm extra layer to that with a private security firm that will ensure twenty four hours a day total monitoring i did this defendant does not leave his home in a white collar context would a private security firm the proposal that you've got that you're pitching to us not make sense when it would not make sense i can't think of one because if if it were in every case where someone can afford or someone's family can afford a private security firm it makes sense it certainly does make sense i know why doesn't happen every time i can only think of one instance where didn't happen i think it was judge berman and that particular case the defendant did not have any ties to the community at all mr song here has plenty of ties he's been here for the last ten years as a permanent loss why would it matter so if someone does not have any ties to the community because afford a private security firm to  imprison him or her effectively that's your argument then why should it matter it shouldn't because if they can keep them in that one spot then it shouldn't matter so is very wealthy person with no ties the community can have access to their penthouse apartment and if that's the equivalent of the b o p for wealthy people that would be absolutely proper under sub nonny and certainly in this case it's totally proper particularly in light of the fact that the government's case is extremely weak i mean that's a point that i have you mentioned is that throughout this whole process the government keeps trotting out the idea that this case is extremely strong they go with this forced labor situation we've come up with evidence from long long time in fact that is a good point because when this first came up before judge johnson the government portrayed this as a simple quick trial indictment and thirty days a trial in one to two weeks and then we find out on december fifth that one be very specific we have a sip a hearing schedule not until may of this year so from that time to the time that mr song has been arrested we're talking six months then if we're just talking as hearing we're then into discovery which means we then have to make motions so we're looking at an extremely i mean i would think a year from then that would be going to trial i asked for a trial immediately at a range but this looks like it's going to go for a year year and a half  which directly implicates mr johns due process rights under these circumstances so you know that was a fact that we had no idea about intil december fifth when we got a letter from the government saying that they were going to designate this as a complex case the other points here that i just want to emphasize is that we were supposed to have a hearing before the district court on january ninth the district court entered an order on us for another hearing so you asking us to order that's right we're asking we're asking this court to order that point  i think the other point on the flight risk which has been raised that we didn't have the opportunity to show the court below that we had actually cut off mr john from all of his assets that we've done that it's taken time but we can actually show every single dime and the fact that he can no longer write checks or have anything to do with this business district little value of his business or it's not true the value of his business but there's none of his assets i think it's somewhere around five hundred thousand dollars or more i mean you got well if you take the house if you count up all the assets all of these things we're willing to put up his bail and we have no problem taking every last dime except for released based on the same bail package judgers already correctly refused to reopen judge johnson's detention order which was amply supported his making a very a significant argument in the sense that  in every white collar case regardless of the degree of risk of flight if someone can pay for a private security firm they should  that that should be the condition of it that is that they should be effectively imprisoned in their own home with the monitoring by a firm what's the government's answer to that your honor i think that's inappropriate to create a blanket rule that white collar defendants or defendants who are rich enough to pay for that sort of what about somebody servants of naani the government conceded nonny did not have government conceded that that was an appropriate condition in detention and that's why that's why the court of appeals and that a mistake that was a decision that was made in the individual facts of that case your honor and i am not here to opine about what might be appropriate in other cases but i can say is in this case that would not be an appropriate  decade working at pearcey diplomatic facilities in the united states to which he would have recourse were he to flee in addition to that his numerous wealthy family members he talks about his assets in the united states and even some in which i mean but recourse you know  g you just there you mean they would help him get out potentially potentially both as you pointed out in the district court he has his business his head offices at the beach at the pierces mission to the united nation he's rented rooms apparently at the p r c consulate in diplomatic facilities where the government would not be able to intrude into principles of consular protection so that is a significant concern in this case but one of the issues that mr ackerman didn't address when he discussed the defendant's access to resources and what the government  consistently argued is a significant risk of flight throughout the proceedings in the district court is that the defendant has a family members who are billionaires in china who are apparently willing to foot the bill for one hundred forty four thousand dollars a month private security guards the assets that he disclosed amount to about five hundred thousand dollars it doesn't make sense it doesn't add up the money that he was willing to put up in the district court doesn't match his assets and as we pointed out what he told pretrial services as well in the you're not specifically aware of a case in which you fled i am aware that in one case in the southern district of new york the agents were able to actually observe the private security firm that was responsible for the defendant in that case  assisting the defendant to thwart the conditions of his release which required him to remain at home or on less permitted out for attorney visits they were monitored be a private security firm actually taking him to a restaurant in chinatown and it was the same the same private security firm that the defendant has proposed to use in this case so this is this is a concern i think in that as we pointed out there are there are numerous there are conflicts of interest in using a private security firm it injects the district or into overseeing a function that is appropriately overseen by professionals the bureau of prisons in the united states marshal service it creates a whole host of new issues for the district court deal with an address they go to they create a further risk of flight and the end of the year i can't say precisely when that would occur but i think it's evident from the transcripts the judge irizarry is taking very careful stewardship of this matter and she intends to bring this case trial very quickly as quickly as yes i will judge this defendant is charged with having been the principal of a chinese construction business that used chinese laborers who were given special diplomatic faeces to do work on chinese diplomatic facilities within the united states and use them instead to perform work on private residences in private projects and monkey means that they use that they causes workers to do that was new day caused that they use contracts that would essentially cause them to forfeit their homes in china because their families to bear significant financial burdens of they were to do anything that violated the terms of those contracts and there's other means that are alleged in the complaint as well the crimes for which the offenders charge carry a presumption under the statute of detention and that was something that judge johnson found in his detention order which the defendant has never appealed that to that that presumption of detention certainly bears in the unanimous is here as to whether the defendant whether any conditions of release this are were human trafficking is alleged there is no such presumption it says that explicitly in fact this case is so different than some nonny where they actually identified who the victims were the names were in there that people were in there they were found in closets in this case we've got people who came into work that were doing work on them for the country that travelled around the country we've got pictures of these workers at niagara falls which is not a typical place where you have slaves hang out which is what the government has tried to allege here the idea that this private security firm that there is something wrong with that let's start with the proposition that pretrial services here has recommended home detention all we're doing is adding an extra layer to that home detention to make shortened at this defendant will return and be there for all of the court appearances the one incident that they represent about this individual going into a chinese restaurant that was under judge hate there was nothing untoward about that there was a problem with the defendants daughter he when it was all explained to judge hate that was no action taken on that it was perfectly proper again another example of the government trying to make something out of nothing  and that's what this case was about some money you actually have real evidence of human trafficking here all of the evidence before this court that's for we don't shows that there was no human trafficking thank you thank you will reserve decision