me to consider this a court of law it is one of mr cohen the government has agreed to mediate this case before judge judy in the people's court that would not be a court of law we might be asked to consider it you know you can argue spend all your time arguing about the agreement but you know we have a case that already said he is constitutional maybe it's binding and i understand that you are and were not going to overturn i can't say i understand what you are however i believe it's important for me to make a few points about about here tony before i move on to the bail issue when president clinton presented the hong kong after addition agreement for the senate he clearly stated this is to be considered a treaty if there was a treaty he would have just said he knew it wasn't a treaty everyone knew it wasn't a treaty he could have said and he would have said this is a treaty he didn't say that because he knew it wasn't a treaty now the course that your honor referred to the way in case essentially held that the president could enter into treaties with sub saharan and cities the problem with the wayne case is that it effectively over rules and holds unconstitutional the eight hundred seventy one and the entreaty act because as this court knows congress cannot take away the powers that are vested in the constitution without amending the constitution and what the congress did and the president approved an eight hundred seventy one is to agree that with respect to the indian tr to enter into treaties with sub saharan entities and eight hundred seventy one act is unconstitutional and that is what the holding of wang would require certainly request on bond review of this case and i am not sure what the status of the way case will be one last point under the holding of the one case the present in the senate will not extradite individuals to the united states if they're facing the death penalty and the president could not get around france's refusal to extradite people by entering into a treaty with paris with the mayor paris because the mayor of paris may be a right wing individual who is more willing to ignore the rules of the country so he's probably a left wing individual contends that section thirty one eighty four does not permit bail and actually dish in case that is not the case section thirty one eighty four simply provides that someone will be sent to jail section very one eighty four does not say that that if a prisoner needs medical care needs that he or she cannot be sent to a hospital it does certification this is a case that there is no special circumstance the supreme court never said that fail in an actually dishing case can only be permitted if there are special circumstances in this to learn ok so the supreme court circumstances they did not mean to establish a special circumstance for the normal bail case nor did they try to have a special circumstance in this case and so the fact that several courts have circumstance test has been applied is that if you are not a flight risk if you are not a danger you still cannot have bail on my peers in special circumstances well what are those we know what the governmental interested in actually vission it's making sure the government can comply with the treaty obligations by preventing the body to the other country well several countries permit the other country meet all their obligations but of course it would be greatly embarrassing for the united states not to be able to produce somebody the last minute because somebody is going to so our interest then is ensuring that that this person is turned over to the country that at the appropriate time then we may or may not choose to let them have bail but i don't understand why the fact that south africa allows people out on bail has anything to do with what we with what i with our practices well your honor you just noted it is important to make sure we process would be violated if we were to hold that if we are one hundred percent during this individual we'll be here but we're just going to throw him in jail anyway because we have the power to do that you're saying that he we can then ideal in certain circumstances but due process has to be applied to those circumstances and what process was mr coe not given here well mr  the government has compelling circumstances not to give him bail that was not what i meant to say or what i meant is that due process requires that the stationary be permitted to ask for bail and be considered for bail however fail should not be granted unless he is not a flight risk not a danger and  treatment in the united states he was never hiding he was living living open in a tory asli under his own name he in fact that letters to the people's republic of china and the year two thousand and two which is how pretrial services said that he was not a flight risk he was not a danger and they were not opposed to continuing him on bail what happened is the government came in after the extradition request was certified and that everything changed he had to have his bail revoked despite the fact that for fourteen months he was he was there he had but there was no indication he was going to going to flee and the situation from one thousand nine hundred ninety is different from today in many respects especially in light of my client's age and there's his health condition you know i think everybody understands that the difference between being out on bail before preventable conviction and being out on bail after conviction is rather broad i believe even for normal who clearly seem to be guilty in this case she faced and she was convicted and got an eighteen month suspended sentence that was one of the reasons early on that judge cooper granted bail because i believe she found that one of the special circumstances was that even if he did go to hong kong he didn't likely face severe point right and that's why he's going to five billion dying not   not a big deal that's why we're here today course to protect that but for approximately a month after the certification decision mr cohen still out on bail is if there was this huge fear that it's over if there are certain special circumstances so i would ask the court to find that the special circumstance first is unconstitutional and i would also ask this court to hold that even if the special circumstance test is not unconstitutional that it has that it has been satisfied in this case and that mr coe should be permitted bail in this case and i would like to reserve was well aware as this court has already pointed out that there is no one hundred percent guarantee of lack of flight risk other than incarceration so that even even though there were there may have been mitigating circumstances which had it's been a criminal case my have changed the calculus of bail here there is no one hundred pairs percent guarantee of lack of flight risk and we had an expedited who had already jumped proper for the district court to to look at the flight risk in those terms and the district court and balance that and properly decided to the government's interests here were think you're on the right of the nicer if not hell that they'll cannot be permitted those certification that is what it is that is what the government is asking however your honor its records seem to apply the wrong standard and i believe they did abuse of discretion because the court agreed or seemed to agree that there where there was no flight risk and there was no danger and and also mistakenly assumed that the law did not permit bail in the polls actually certification contests and therefore i