not as it related to forfeiture the well how can you i mean it seems to me there's a certain inconsistency here you can you can't on the one hand say that it's a critical stage of the proceedings in a criminal sentencing and then have a lawyer say well i'm just the if you're talking about moments in the record in mr fens physical presence i agree that he was there giving a critical stage as being the sentencing in the process by which we determine the appropriate punishment was quite alarming and in that context clearly indicates that he was not representing this accounted for that from that statement that he meant that i've never been representing him and that's even though he was physically present well your honor at that point i think it's helpful to look will thirty two point two procedure and see how that unfolds in this case to understand at the stage at which they had a conference on the motion for preliminary order the forfeiture proceedings actually had not commenced the forfeiture proceedings commen on the filing of the superseding information which was not followed until the the rule of colloquy in december this conversation was had actually i'm sorry as it relates to the statement the factual a defendant has notice of what the government is actually going to seek to forfeit and it's at that critical stage that you have the opportunity to one hundred thirty two point to contest the forfeiture of the first opportunity and to it's the first opportunity and the only opportunity to have a hearing on the nexus and quits doing that is the moment that mr finn abandons his client or makes it clear that he's abandoned his client as it relates to criminal forfeiture but then at the time he entered l on the forfeiture matter mr rich speaks admission as it is termed is really meaningless because it's just a legal conclusion and so but also at that stage when he when he signs the factual resume december his his admission is meaningless i think coming from a lay person without the advice of counsel giving the conclusion that the property identified in the superseding information or  proceeds i think is meaningless furthermore it will if talk about the timeline then yes when the lawyer is sent when the lawyer said i'm not his civil lawyer wasn't it after that that he his objections but he later withdraws that who withdrew then mr fenn withdrew those objections and did that occur after he had said i'm not a civil lawyer yes your honor it so he said i'm not a civil lawyer but then he withdraws an objection and you don't you don't you don't think that's an indication that he was representing him he would draw as an objection no your honor i think it's an indication that in his long laundry list of objections mr fenn was reviewed the p s r of his client when his client pointed out a factual inaccuracy such as his immigration status mr fenn included that in his objection there's no analysis as it relates to forfeiture in the objection but all that aside mr fenn withdraws objection without talking to his client about it i think there are circumstances when a lawyer would do that i think it and i and we don't know whether that occurred in this case we don't have any indication whether mr fenn had that discussion courts where mr if the property to be forfeited now where is the property you are i don't know where the property is whether the government still has control of it or if it's been disposed of and so that would be a matter that would need to be explored  whether you had councilman to conduct proceedings that no longer have any meaning for the record doesn't support that the property has been disposed of presumably the as far as the record is concerned the property is in conduct and the property to be forfeited and the property of the member that they tell the property but what were they there are three homes three vehicles over one hundred thousand  not stand that but as you know we have lots and lots of published opinions unpublished as well that say if you don't specifically brief the third and fourth promise or your brief both of those specifically in that that's the that's the end of the matter you don't you know for example in the fourth prong you don't you don't have any discussion in your brief about how the fourth promise is met your i believe the reply brief addresses that argument of the government  points to the initial brief although the initial brief doesn't have an extensive discussion of it it addresses it in relation to the burden on it and it also addresses the significance of because subsequent date you go to the forfeiture proceeding they have already stipulated that these are the object of a form for tour and that these particular items of the items that a it in a factual resume i believe is a indication that there was not counsel what can what kind of counsel would advise someone to give up three homes three cars one hundred thousand dollars and four gold bars in factual resume and in the context of the factual resume its purpose is to admonish the defendant of consequences it's not for providing a factual basis and so i would ask that the court apply analysis trail for this case but if it chooses to do so i think this case turns on just a very relatively simple question did mr repeats attorney totally abandon the issue of forfeiture and has the court has pointed out the record indicate hearing mr beacon the case that he is fully satisfied with his attorney also indicates that he has read the factual resume he understands it and that everything contained in that document is true so at this point the process prior to the motion for connection with a plea of guilty in this case and it also highlights the importance of this separation or i'm sure that the importance of the district court judge making his own determination about the nex and so you're not the government has argued that mr finn and had no incentive to have mr feet withdraw his stipulation that was in the factual resume and that argument is exactly the and to represent him on the other matters you know if it were money if we were talking about for instance another element of sentencing and mr finn said i'm not going to represent mr feet on the matter of supervised release if that was in