prosecute there's no argument there secondly we agree that if mr anderson had been arrested in this state solely on the basis of an arrest warrant his right to counsel would not attach there's no problem there but that's not our case mr anderson was arrested after a complaint was filed in the state of new hampshire and by virtue of the fact that he was arrested in the state of new hampshire the california extradition statute and the united states  when the new hampshire court agreed to his rendition back to california said it was obligated to do so under the constitution of the united states so the extradition clause is very much in the  i'm sorry he waived even waive the extradition hearing that's true but the point the point is not whether or not he pursued it with an extradition hearing the point is whether california had committed itself to prosecute position and i mean let me ask you this he did that he had a public defender right and on the vice of this public defender he waived extradition am i correct on the facts he had a public defender in new hampshire that's correct and they went in and they came and got him or whatever they did just would you have a better argument if he had gone through the whole extradition your argument be stronger from your standpoint would you rather make the argument if you had had the extradition hearing and then after you know having a contested hearing on that court ordered him you have to go to california frankly your honor i don't see the answer's no i don't see why my argument be any stronger than the question and we have to keep our eye on the question here the question is whether california filed formal charges now in order to even begin and we can all agree they've begun the extradition proceedings because the the communications between the officers and the court in new hampshire indicated that they were going out there to commence extradition i mean that's what that's in the that's in the excerpt record so the question is whether as a precedent to that california has filed formal charges now whether he  there's no right to counsel until formal charges are brought under the extradition clause you can't even begin to extradite you can't even ask until formal charges have been filed it's the same inquiry it's exactly the same inquiry now the fact that mr anderson didn't demand in the new hampshire court to see that document show me the document doesn't mean the document didn't exist document document it's final that there they have it charge sufficient to begin extradition and yet say there's no right to counsel because guess what there's no formal charge how can they have a both ways and say there's they certify to the governor that we're going to bring this guy back here for trial and then say there's no right to counsel because we haven't committed to prosecute it doesn't make sense and i would hope i would ask the court to have the state explain how it can have it both ways once that filed for an arrest warrant is not an adversary judicial criminal proceeding right in terms of the status of the law is there anything in the ninth circuit yes your honor exactly the same thing and i wrote a bunch of other circuit to say the exactly the same thing a complaint for an arrest warrant does not initiate the right to counsel under the sixth amendment under federal law and versus bauer sites where it was based on a complaint where it is based on a complaint there is a right to counsel attaches and that's no more than a garden variety application of the united states supreme court case of more versus illinois it was a case in which right to counsel was found by the united states supreme court based on the filing of a complaint and it was not a complaint signed by district attorney and more it was a complaint signed by the victim and here you have a complaint that is not only signed by a police officer it is prepared by the district attorney on the bottom of the complaint that's number one number two mr b out is a little bit of a sleight of hand here when he says the right to counsel counsel it appeared it's not an adversarial proceeding there's no right there's no defense lawyer in the grand jury room and the officers went very nicely to deliver the indictment to the defendant saying hey we thought you might want to see this and got some statements from him that the united states supreme court held in television united states the right to counsel attaches it's not an adversarial proceeding the question is whether there was a formal accusation which there was in this case finally not every circuit h and the reason he was stabbed is because the san francisco officers had a little dialogue with the new hampshire people and apparently asked them to put back mr anderson's a rain that so council would not be appointed now why would they not want counsel appointed in new hampshire for mr anderson and the reason was because they wanted to have at him and so mr anderson learned this you immediately called the san francisco office and said i'm representing him i am his lawyer on this and then he asked for brady