Their claim is that the government unjustifiably interfered with their relationship with counsel and their ability to mount the best defense they could muster. The government, relying on Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 109 S.Ct. 2646, 105 L.Ed.2d 528 (1989), contends that a defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to a defense funded by someone else’s money. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to retain counsel of choice was not violated when the funds he earmarked for defense were seized under a federal forfeiture statute, because title to the forfeitable'assets had vested in the United States. Id. at 628, 109 S.Ct. 2646; see also United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 616, 109 S.Ct. 2657, 105 L.Ed.2d 512 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The government focuses on the following
holding that trial court erred by entering restraining order against former husbands current wife who was not a party or served with process as a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action holding injunction was proper after state court entered a temporary restraining order against defendants many of whom were also defendants in a federal multidistrict action because the restraining order would interfere with the multidistrict courts ability to dispose of the action before it holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause recognizing that a stay contained in anex parte order did not serve to suspend the effectiveness of the restraining notice otherwise any judgment debtor could obtain such an order without notice to the court that a restraining notice had been served or to the judgment creditor and recover his property theretofore properly made the subject of the restraining notice holding that pretrial restraining order based on showing of probable cause that property is forfeitable does not arbitrarily interfere with a defendants fair opportunity to retain counsel