what was the decision process say ok spirit course not acting well sure what to do it's getting close to christmas we're running out of time what makes you decide to go to the court of absolutely what happened in this case was we had a motion from my opponent already before the superior court which had been stayed pending the third circuit appeal so it seemed most expedient to simply go back to the spirit court and say there's no reason to stay anymore let's continue we hope they would do that time of this court's opinion and it said if you need an emergency motion to the third circuit you are going to need to call and here's a phone number and you'd better let us know when it's bad because getting a panel together right now is going to be a challenge so this court fortunately for practitioners before it does have a method to get to the panel and the supreme court unfortunately does not have a similar protocol so when we looked at the situation we knew we had no control over that situation so we could go on to judge kyra back in the district court now for more time but we asked ourselves about point the question we thought joe shapiro would ask us which is how do you done everything you can to get to get this reinstatement and once we thought about it we realized we actually had not at that point we typically when there's a reinstatement of a direct appeal you go to the court accomplis so at that point we decided that it was most prudent it was now the twenty second of december had three days left so we wanted to go we went to the court accomplis to the calendar judge to judge matter and we said here is an order from the third circuit we need to reinstate this appeal can you take that action just dumb question time it reads to me actually as if it allows for simultaneous jurisdiction here that if there is an order of the court they can take action this is here court has indicated to us that they have their no it moves out of joint at all and i think they were be a six year process the common pleas order i was ineffective for a number of reasons the first is so the last round of this case the main question was the government and the government argued braver and the superior court agreed to go back and we continue and got the real sixty and so a critical part of the last round was that this appeal be reinstated on the merits and state court judge lerner issued disorder interpret this court's decision yeah yeah and i don't think she fell she was necessarily her discretion was necessarily circumscribed i think what she was trying to do was exercise her discretion in a right i was consistent with this court decision i'll tell you that i think both parties as well as judge her prior and maybe it was just reading between the lines because again this is a procedure a complex case with a lot of background but i think all of us interpreted the procedure but to give you a little bit of background that informs judge of pirates decision in this last round she granted a conditional that that required reinstatement of appeal of the appeal on the merits within ninety days but she refused to stay pending the government's appeal to this court and she did so for good reason because under supreme court precedent and the hague deciding there is a presumption in favor of release pending appeal of a petitioner so she said i'm not going to too much there are only thirteen days left on the court and ordered expedited briefs thing and then how comes this december two thousand and fourteen opinion that says we're lifting the stay and as part of that appeal i asked for an unconditional release but this court said the say you know we have thirteen days left so i guess that backdrop i think it wasn't unreasonable for judgeship higher to conclude that what the what this court wants is quick action and there are thirteen days left for come to me he didn't come to me as a tactical matter i mean the government and its briefs below i had in the transcript said judge a pile reading go to you because we thought you were going to not we thought you would deny a request because you denied it before you didn't give us a state before so we thought you wouldn't give us an this is all blown not in the superior court the government's made statements that it believes that there needs to be had to ensure hearings before disk addressing these questions on the merits and so while it's always been our goal to reinstate is same officer so so work very well could happen is we could go back there i can make my same arguments that that i made years ago which have never been disputed on the merits and they're going to seat at the bench or hearings and delay resolution  look the bottom line is reinstated you know i think that and they did everything they possibly could to reinstate it you know they can't force the supreme court act before december twenty fourth well i mean for her to consider the government's request to modify the red because i think as your honor pointed out she may have been under the impression that she was following this court's decision and didn't have the discretion that she may have had and entertaining the government's modify and that right what if she says no i know i have discretion i want to issue the it conditionally is to get the appeal reinstated on the merits and decide a decided back way so i will say any federal district courts have a tremendous amount of discretion in terms of deciding to it's tough to say that they they acted in and it untoward way that they did what they could maybe short of going back or just your within the thirteen day period but it they certainly didn't  effort on their part to thwart the efficacy of her substantive order that's that's correct i'm not sure how well i mean the only i think fall to the government was not discretion in this context so don't wait until it may be strategically on wise to wait until after the deadline passes to then go ask the district court for an extension or a modification of the rep because the district court judge maybe what they thought was on december twenty two