time i have appeared before this court for this appellate on the question of whether a guardian ad litum appointed by a district court to represent minors in the civil litigation entitled to invoke removal of jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute to me this question is really about category whether or not a guardian ad litem falls within the categories of persons entitled to invoke removal jurisdiction now in the last appeal from a criminal action involving as appellant this court found that appellant had waived her right to invoke removal jurisdiction by entering into a pleading greenman with the state prosecution implicit in the court finding and that appeal was that in fact a right did exist on the part of a guardian that line  still have to show a nexus between the alleged federal officer acting under color or acting under a federal officer and what it is that your client is  charged with and how is there a nexus between even if being a jail could be the type of officer you said it is and applying for six driver's licenses including many before determination there was no nonetheless i'd ask you to answer my question absolutely well i believe in the in the record certainly hasn't been developed fully on that but i would contend that it certainly is you know if she is she's appointed as a guardian ad litum for her grandkids right that's correct so she's accused by the state of applying for her false driver's licenses many of which before she was appointed as litem any alleged acts that she committed no violation of state law would fall without outside the scope of any claim that there was a i mean there's no way to establish a nexus under that circumstance but there were if i recall correctly is within or without the scope of those duties well i'd certainly think that the district court would be required to make a factual determination on that issue and not a question of law i believe it would be a question of law if there were simply no plausible way that you know as a matter of law that the offense of perjury in the acquisition of a california be could be carried out as a part of the before the hypothetically give me an example of how it could ok the example i would give is that in order for a guardian ad litem even to appear in the district court they require a id to names it's whether her name was pauline hunter or her maiden name which is i believe pauline clay it's not as if you know the allegations were that she constructed or stole someone's life identity and  and then try to use this false identity to i suspect i suspect your colleague would differ with your view of that but i mean if you take a different situation a federal officer has a license to carry a gun and that's part of their federal duties let's say they went into a store and stole a gun that they were going to use as part of their federal duties and they were charged in state court with stealing the gun under your theory they could remove that well i think that there would have to be a fact intensive inquiry so if you would ask me is there a scenario where a federal officer were to steal a gun could there could i envision a scenario where that actually would be carrying out some federal function i would answer yes i can envision a scenario they may be performing some type of undercover operation they may be involved in some type of criminal investigation federally that would require them to engage authority but you also have to have a colorable federal defense well what is the federal defense that you would present to to the charges here well the federal offense would be mainly relying upon the by a guardian ad litem and so our contention would be that if she indeed was carrying out a function or inherent function that she needed to do and that is alleged to have violated some state law that in fact she would be from prosecution on that basis but i mean i guess maybe i'm switching elements here but it seems to me i mean you can characterize the problem in some sense under any of the three elements but  appointed your client as guardian ad litem didn't say you go out and get a fake driver's license i've seen you're not saying that i told you to do that i know i mean there's nothing in the record to indicate that so how does so then how does order to carry out their function as on the job then the moment that they get in the congo to work they are acting within the scope of their duties just by driving and if inherent in what the guardian a line of has to do has now been inclined not to stay the case there's a dispute about that and it may mean in all honesty i think we're just awaiting to figure out what's going on with this court and thank you good morning your honor scott collins deputy district attorney on behalf of the people the state of california may please the court to answer the court's most recent question of believe that the case is in warm status in state court and my my ourselves spit that obviously on this record it appears live controversy so yes around go for it good morning so that the court from the courts questions clearly don't need to  go into the three prongs that are required under the the removal statute the court's questions are clear the court understands what's required a statute speaks for itself and then  thirty two u s supreme court and the appellant's notice of removal simply failed to demonstrate each of the three required elements she failed to demonstrate that she is a federal officer particularly in light of controlling president from the united states supreme court going back a one hundred and fifty years in ex parte garland to the supreme court held that a lawyer is an officer of the court but is not a federal officer within the meaning of federal statutes it is that can you conceive of some circumstances where she could fall into the category of acting and or a federal officer for purposes removed or not under these facts i mean when i think of someone who's appointed working with the task force officer that task force group goes in execute a search warrant the state for instance pick california says hey we don't like da going executing search warrants for marijuana so we're going to actually charge these officers with burglary that say task force officer working under the supervision of a dea age agent for the d n a could remove that case to federal district court but scenarios like that are so far removed from the facts before this court i simply can't come up with any good scenario as to why going in lying on driver's license applications and the the district court's holding that that a guardian ad litum is not does not qualify under one thousand four hundred and forty two that seems to need to be a question of law and further i think both parties agree that this court reviews  removal actions do novo so under either scenario that this court gets a fresh look at it and because this case is basically presented on the pleadings the novo review and i think court can comfortably answer both of those questions in the negative in addition to finding that guardian ad litum simply is not does not rise to the level of a federal officer under the meaning of the dollars that was the case in which a state actor in the state of washington was appointed as a guardian ad litum under washington state law and this court held that a guardian ad litum under washington state law  was not performing quote state action within the meaning of that statute and so when you look at that just applying that to this case is to me perfectly logical particularly in light of the controlling versus philip morris case the us supreme court said look merely being supervised by a government agency is insufficient to create federal officer status for purposes of this they claim that a guard in the light him is not an officer that they are somehow a representative of the party is really contrary to a very long line of th circuit cases that have recognized that a guarding the line is not a form of in is actually a federal officer or and an agent of the court that is there to act independently to ensure that the attorneys and the other parties are not taking advantage of this minor and they are acting under