well here the next case aims first was new york state department of correct in the first appeal the arguments around that issue were very sparse because the primary issues in that appeal were entirely different issues and so respectfully very respectfully and i understand but you have an uphill battle particularly given the composition of this panel and the composition of that of public agencies that you that you mention in your brief involve entities that are acting under some legal duty to do something and here  where is that legal duty if anything in the state legislature over time took away what might be thought of as a legal duty and it doesn't organizations the private watchdog organizations that issue instead the inquiry is on whether the government created those organizations and whether the purpose of creating those organizations was to serve the government's needs so if they acted as agents for the government under duties part of that test instead those cases the public entity cases seem only to focus on the inquiry of whether those organizations were created to serve a particular purpose for the government and there isn't an analysis of whether are they authorized are they looking at the language and the justification supplied by the sixth circuit in that case as applying to the justification for the quasi public entity doctrine as a whole and of course that is the underlying purpose of the of the public records exception which is where the government ha there are two sources of information in the cocksucker report that's the subject of this appeal there are the survey responses from the inmates themselves but separately from the survey information there are raw data and statistics supplied directly by the facility that they had helping other inmates file grievances and the defendant corrections officers constant issuance of misbehavior reports to him and we believe that it would have rendered their testimony incredible big they testified at trial that they barely comment on various things just give responses and we have no way of checking the truth of the statistical data ought to come in so let's divide it up we'll put it in the statistical data off of that separately we know is that we did not make that argument but the reason we didn't make it this yes absolutely thank you may please the court frederick brody for defendants of heloise in light of this court's decision after school which found that the admission of a correctional association report was reversible error the district court here cannot correctional association is not a public office therefore the report doesn't come in under the exception moreover as one of your authors pointed out the correctional soucy ition did not act at duty to to visit on inspect and and report on the conditions in prisons in one thousand seventy three the phrase it shall be their duty was removed from the so all you have now is that they're allowed to visit the prisons there are they in the power to inspect the prisons the power to examine the prisons is gone and they have the power to issue now the power to do something is not the same as a direction from the legislature the correctional socialisation might decide not to issue any reports and that would do that would not be breaking any law that would not be   sort of private citizen review boards and whatnot i don't believe that it would be they would be subject to any sort of legal challenge for not issuing the report and that's what they're charged to do because they were created by the government she serve a particular purpose and