wonder if there's a way that you win by losing here and let me tell you where i come from on this ok i understand that the government's argument has been you're not aggrieved here because your const not agree because he agreed to the order as i understand your your argument your argument is well there were really conditions imposed above and beyond what my client agreed to that are different from the agreement and that does seem to me to be a little bit of a different take but it seemed to me that if your argument is really based on a misunderstanding of what the import of the district court so called conditions are if there are not really conditions and it's just a paraphrasing of what the agreement is and what really matters is whatever the settlement agreement says and that all that the district court actually did in substance here was dismissed the indictment then your client's not agree  and you don't have your client doesn't have standing to complain about that and if we if we say nothing else that the district court said when it dismissed the indictment was in fact a condition imposed on your client isn't that doesn't i get it you're caught which upon once i think that my jurisdiction argument is is very much damage if the court would in effect strike this or what i consider hopefully to be supply ssage from the district court's order i don't think i would have i think it's a much more debatable question whether i would have juror whether the strike everything from the order so if the district court had just entered an order that said the indictment is dismissed without prejudice period you don't you can't complain about that i mean i would have a much more not the imp not how it's going to be relied on by u s courts or how u s courts are going to look at it but how russian courts eastern european courts how how the russian federation is going to look at it whether he's going to be able to get a you know security position in the russian government or whatever that it he has this order all those provisions of that order have the effect and we've cited one provision where he can't fight about a credit cards before the company s no the case is still open so he's already had that problem so if we say the case is closed i mean which it's appears to me and that what the district court really said here was it was it was explaining how it led to this disposition a dismissal without prejudice the parties had settled this is you know kind of a description of it paraphrasing of it but but  it's not the imposition of any conditions on your client or anything like that it's just that explanation and that and the indictment was dismissed your client's not a grief by that it seems to me and client doesn't have standing appellate standing we don't have a case or controversy i mean i suppose if the court would enter that order i could then move the district court to amend its order to conform to what the court is saying i don't i don't think you have to do that if we if we say that's what the import of it is that that's the end of the matter right i what we say you think the district court would ignore what we said about it's a what or no no i don't i think that there again is first problem i mean in going this way and trying to trying to agree to some way to resolve this in the least offensive way possible i'm not trying to get you to agree to something resolves what your complaint appears to be in response to their argument that you just you agreed to disown you can't complain about it is i understand you say why do you agree to these conditions that my client didn't agree to these conditions the district court affectively imposed to here and i say doesn't look like the district court imposed any conditions to me that seems to relieve your concern of oh if i could if i could i just why i think the order so problematic and it is true that if the court if the order just said dismissed without prejudice i would have told the client i'm not taking your money it's just not worth it even though i believe the indictment should have been dismissed with prejudice because it was a permanent thing it was not a situation where in light of this agreement where the government could say ok this indictment been dismissed let's go to another grand jury indicted they couldn't because it's so was not a situation that is ordinarily thought of as a dismissal without prejudice that would have been a direct violation of his rights so that even though that that would have been a violation i don't think i would have told him to bother but when the court puts in the changes the terms of the or says he cannot return here and then says the consequence was is that the government can reinstate the indictment which is tells us that it's not a dismissal it would see that all of that seems to me to be the district court's paraphrasing of its understanding of the settlement agreement and  just it's not any kind of binding condition or anything like that on your client and and it just doesn't matter i would just ask the court in the interest of a perfect clarity if the court were is going to say we're going to treat this order as simply a dismissal without prejudice that the court ask the district court to amend it to say that and i just think that that's not doesn't say he don't think we have to do that i mean i just don't the reason why again the whole purpose of this agreement was both to to have the correct immigration affect effectuated for the fact foreign to correct foreign affect this is not like the ordinary case of a u s citizen person hears it's a it's a complicated situation it took from the moment they announced that they wanted to do this agreement it took forty days to get to this agreement it was very precise and very calibrated and it was it's really a matter of if but it seems to me that if we say what really matters is the agreement itself and we don't really have a case or controversy about that and that whatever the district court said about it was just you know the district courts understanding but it does it's not binding  extent your client is worried about some kind of imminent right that he has that's not foreclosed by the settlement agreement but he thinks the government is going to act differently on a different understanding maybe he could file a declared tory judgment action or something like that it just doesn't seem to me though that in this posture with the dismissal of the indictment against your client your client has anything to complain about your honor i've tried to pick articulate the best i can in the brief it's a unique situation very carefully set up agreement we feel in our what in all honesty the dismissal should have been with prejudice given that we're trying to get to a a as a as limited a position as possible in terms of settlement agreement and the term that we more often apply well the difference was of course in this case there was no conviction and the government unusual case they knew he was going to go to trial it was going to be a messy problem and so they said they knew also that it why his wife who is was russian had gone back to russia so they said we you know we're running out of time and i understand that but basically  so you say something the debate that to me is not really doesn't really get to the heart of his argument which is well he agreed to this well i mean it his argument really is well the district court did something over and over and above what my client agreed to and it seems to me that the response to that is no it did i understand well in the second and third sections of the brief what we argue essentially is that he misconstrues the district court's order and right in the manner that your honor suggests which is that this case is closed he calls it a conditional dismissal but it's really not right conditional dismissal could mean a few things it could mean let's say the court has to enter an order ten years in the future actually closing the case that's not going to happen this is that order case is done the other thing it could mean is that it was conditioned on the execution of a settlement agreement that already been executed that the district court then paraphrase exactly and the parties rights and obligations are govern settlement agreement exactly which exists independently of this order and so the order really is just no different than an order that says this case is dismissed without prejudice that's what brings it within the park cases the kelly case that say that there is no apology and this is actually one of those instances where we're just going to the standing question it seems to me is a lot easier than worrying about statutory jurisdiction because if you look at twelve ninety one and clara lawyer doctrine it's a lot more complicated to go through that i mean the easy way to look at desist if if what we're saying about this order is is is right is that your call and that his client is not aggrieved by period correct and i think that satisfies the government's concerns that actually satisfies his concerns because as you pointed out there will be an opinion it could be a one paragraph opinion it says the district court order did you know be more than that or no i certainly don't want to write it for you but it will say this clip this case has been closed there are no charges pending therefore the appeal is dismissed and to the extent there any adverse collateral issues for him in his current life you can show that opinion to everyone and it will be very clear about what was done here will publish something longer than that just you know i can feel better of course and it seems like your honour's have no further questions for me i'm happy to answer anything if you do have and if not we respectfully request this court dismiss the case without for lack of jurisdiction or lack of standing thank you very much thank client who was once charged of a crime the charge before him the charge was has been dismissed and in the eyes of the law is is presumed innocent in the ike all of us in the live in the in the in the eyes of one court in the world that will be the case because he will have this order that the whole purposes of agreement was not how it's affecting this country but its effect in russia its effect in as in the world because he's not supposed to come back and  that is fundamentally problematic and to say that he doesn't have standing for that i mean is he's an innocent man as we stand here is everybody stands for today this is an innocent man who's got as much of a mark on his order as anybody could possibly have you can't return to the united states you were provoked for him if you were exiled from the i don't which is when i have a card an emperor writes he has to return to the united states it seems to me are governed by that settlement agreement and and the law more generally not by anything the district court said if that's the case then the order is incorrect well make maybe we just need to explain that that's the case and a published clear i don't it's hard for me to understand how you would have a complaint about that i well i have a complaint i worry about president i worry about i worry about the empower make a presidential i worry  i go i do i do worry you don't want to have practices come into play that where this is this is at the margins of what's permissible constitutionally my opinion which is that the government took a took a person he said are you willing to give up your permanent residency in order for us to dismiss the charges they said yes ok so then he leaves the country he does everything he's posted here you know the settlement agreement and it's validity none of that's before me i'm sure i'm sure of that  mean what we really have to figure out is whether what the district court did was first of all agreed joe klein and if so whether whether it was proper and it seems to me based on the way i understand what the district court that in fact did did not agree with your client and by so explaining it it seems to me it would resolve your concerns and again i do want to repeat repeat just just just in your view is that that wouldn't be enough what we would have to do is vacate the order just as that said the problem with that is if i if i think that's what the district court did of this order that we can redress and if we read the order and we read it differently and say this is the proper understanding of the order and in fact it does not  e your client i don't know how our court can do anything other than just dismiss the appeal can i just recites so that if the court is writing it published opinion think it's worth it to say the things that i think that if i were asking to correct it i would ask the court to take out the language with without prejudice i don't see that that's a fair interpretation of the settlement agreement doesn't make sense because then and just i just want to just really quickly run through these just so the court knows and i'm not trying to convince i just say you know what i'm saying sir the distinction is again they could not leave that building or go upstairs to the another floor in that building and get another indictment against mr pett link of that day in any other case in which a diamond is dismissed without prejudice they can do it they can do it that day but they could never do that here and that's the that's why how the confusion comes in the confusion comes in is they when they when he's out of the country they ask the district or to make it without prejudice that's the first problem the second problem is their interpretation of without prejudice that needs to be corrected to say that they can reinstate this indictment that tells the whole world that the american understanding of a dismissal is basically a suspension of the indictment because it can be revived and is not put out of the way it and the third thing is to misreading of the end of the of the agreement which was in l p r agreement it was not an exile agreement it was different it was you losing all of your rights thank you thank you mr good good to see again