documents that have been seeking in a series of four years going all the back to one thousand nine hundred and eighty three this document the i m c document which is the critical document of all of them goes to the heart of the issue of whether i am c stands for international medical center and if it stands for international medical center and then the almost incredible argument that was made to judge the district court below in five hundred and fifty dollars pages which were not considered when she rendered her decision that this was a cia executive order one hundred and twenty three its recent domestic covert operation if that's true everything that flows from it that happened below and in the other cases that we've taken many of them coming before this court have to be looked at with a lens which i think is found in the recent supreme court decision by chief justice roberts in department of commerce versus new york which i think is the controlling case for today and their chief justice roberts said if they're contrived facts and contrived law the act of doing the review by an article three judge can't be performed and if i can quote him exactly and this is the whole thing that i think applies here excepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise if judicial review is to be more than empty raised the issue of the importance of attorneys working for the government to be free to give sound legal advice to their clients their clients include the department of justice the cia the n the department of finance and the quote i'm using from this court which i think is also a pluggable in this case leading to remain in the public interest in ensuring that government officials receive sound legal advice  is at its apex when the programs about which advice is sought are secret and unlikely to be subject to litigation and that was the crux of what's happened in this case and the other for your case of take in many of which became before th this case the u s government's attorneys from the eastern district do not have clearance to read the cia classified documents however the cia general counsel courtney el and the assistant attorney general for the civil division mr hunt have clearance to read the classified documents what happens and download the court below the eastern district of new york attorneys and other skate started in two thousand made presentations at the court without knowing what are the cia classified documents meanwhile i'm writing document after document five hundred and fifty dollars pages voluminous which judge c p the court below had to have read in order to render her decisions but at the same time when the summary judgment motions were made my motion and the government's motion didn't consider the five hundred and fifty pages now and those five hundred and fifty pages what was presented was the fact that there were and i was nice that was saying thank fax thank fax by the government necessary for them to protect cia domestic covert operations which gets us back to the i am c document the and i lost in the we went up to the supreme court petition denied and i took another case and the court below allowed me to take the other case although they were going simultaneously robert eight vs d o j h h s and s s a in that case two was judge went to the nd circuit last petition reducer surely now those cases sought documents which would corroborate the documents being sought here which i saw in two thousand and contrary to what the government keeps saying the cia agency released panel specifically said they died me in two thousand and two and i got a quote this agency has identified no records responsive to your request now when you do this litigation for you when the cia says no document cia agency release panels i'm at the highest level there's no response of documents that's code for we're not going to tell you anything because if we tell you something we tell you something and specifically on december nd two thousand and two cia agency released panel vice chairman bricked says specifically you have the right to seek judicial review of this determination of the united states as a court which i proceeded to