speedy trial right and the supreme court has repeatedly stated that the right is triggered when someone is by indictment information or other formal charge that samarian or when the defendant is indicted arrested or otherwise official it is a strong is a very important question of that especially since there is no reason for that to weigh other than the government's intentional decision to continue investigating that charges which as we know it is is not considered a with the government's fault but just hypothetically i'm not so we haven't talked about the case or i'm just giving you and i know that the government's not going to concede that i just say hype about equally but then i sad there was no fault with the government but but there was no prejudice to you all the people that died or the people they could remember were we're actually favored into the government i know that that's not what you're asking me to do i question you know with it with a delay this long especially if the entire the way was to be put on the government but even if just the four years between complain and the indictment were put on the government and courts are over and over again clear that w they saying there isn't there is some conflict over whether the plane or the invite it would appear to me that it certainly makes your case easier if all the if the government is at fault on client had thought of that certainly his right but if your client has a little my gosh my fine extradition for all these years i'm going to lose some witnesses who would be helpful to me that's a choice he gosh this case is being brought in violation of the statue of limitations and why isn't implicit in his fighting extradition a similar kind of waiver so far respect i think the government tends to articulate that extradition period as though my client were just frivolously delaying his trial but i do believe that this was a serious litigation over his rights in canada where i agree  and in ways that seriously precious the defense in terms of witnesses who said they couldn't remember their previous statements undermining the defense's ability to impeach them and whether those loss of memory occurred because of the intitled no matter what the other circumstances to a presumption of prejudice that that's how i view that kids in my wrong in reading it that way because it seems to me if that is really here we will inevitably lose if you're not entitled to a presumption of precious you have to show actual printers i just don't think you can do that and firstly if you are entitled to a presumption of pressures i don't think the government can revise it seems to me that's really one of the critical considerations here and i read a curious to live in you of the ability to to to obtain a presumption prejudiced because your client was aware very early on of the charges and did not convey a lose of the opportunity to have a result quickly so how do you respond in the cases distinguish between a situation where the openly and under the law and i don't know if you still should be does not say that if your is not talking about taking active steps to a venue to revise its nearly talking about once you become aware that charges are out there parker the government are post this so called demand waiver world where if the defendant doesn't demand demand speedy trial and just sit on it then he effectively waves to trial in the court rejected so i don't i don't think barker is controlling when you describe then we have a jury after that which as i said it's analyzing the rd factor again and it's trying to figure out under what circumstances does the defendant even though the delay because the defendant there knew that these charges were out there not that he had an obligation to to present himself and please try me but that you know if you really was interested in his the trial  and he wanted to assert his rights he had the ability to do so and he chose not to so therefore we're going to place basically the blame for all of that delay after he was aware of the charges on him not only government and so that's that's what i need your help with if you're go would show up to the court and notify the government when he arrived back in the us basically telling the government that it was not on them to look look for him because he was going to bring himself to trial so use me and then he essentially snuck into the u and never notified the government after he had told them that you would and that's quite a different situation because it essentially told the government you know it's not on you a church of i me i'll just bring myself and pretty soon just give me a couple of months so i could finish my other country and in that situation i take it understand that that's not the same as someone who's running away from the authorities but it's it's very different than somebody who's just you know living out in the open never told the government he was going to come try to stop them made very charges does not diminish any governmental negligence in failing to pursue him so i do think the question is where does the case fall in the light of something like a vision which i do think i take that is why that it wasn't technically that integrate but closer to that versus someone living in the lure him through a covert operation but of course that didn't preclude also moving for extradition but you didn't and then after you gave up on that you spent a billy year and a office of international affairs this was a complex case involving cross border telemarketing seems thousands of victims local companies in which to spend it consistently change the name of the company so under that guys the district court found that the government recently pursue to you you've mentioned that before about how complex this will actually i am i'm finding it hard to understand that this was just a classic case of customers being told laws which you can prove  large in order to obtain money from the you know sort of true and one dollar on one the fact that it's there were several company names of all those make it particularly complex it struck me as a pretty simple saying i don't think you need to be the most experienced deputy and i mean i used to be a prosecutor i'd say i could probably give this case after a year you know  in preparing an extradition and is it any defense the so you know this is the way we do it all the time we always take a year and a half except in the most of burgesses situations that's the way we've been doing what was the rate what attempts did he make to test whether he was going to get right or wrong in those other cases the i didn't see any of that so abandoning its its prosecution but the indictment date me was lingering however they could not proceed to trial on that indictment before firing additional docking in the question with the court to reinstate it i'd also point out that a complaint can be the government can go to trial with a complaint on a misdemeanor so with other than that issue going to trial in a document i think these distinctions between indictment information and plain are really arbitrary especially look at  by a prosecutor and the supreme court has explained that it has to be based on probable cause because quote it must be adequate to begin effectively the criminal process prescribed by the federal criminal rules in a case called job in three