is to defend many folks especially minorities have have important constitutional issues as a court appointed lawyer which i was in this case or in any circumstances for a raise and protect their interests are important that we ask to get the voice box software that the government uses so that we can use it to analyze this information we're not allowed to have it we do get those p c s we put we analyzed the first seven thousand pages of those good additional affidavit presented its best laid on the case we were not given a chance to respond to that there was no bottle to that no opportunity to cross examine asian brown concerning that affidavit which still showed that the vast and that we should be given that opportunity but there's an interesting question about the society here and the limits on it and the extent to which the government in these applications affidavits and worse it's pretty plainly written by government counsel stablish five hundred or more calls or even seven hundred would not seem more comments along those lines or at least as this as scott pointed out there are a number of reasons why three points a number of reasons why and investigation  the starting with this is another reason why statistics are are not particularly the starting point here is the complete it calls or when starting so there are fifteen thousand plus completed calls when she divide subtract the text messages but that number includes completed calls between midnight and eight am so even that meant number of memories completed calls is somewhat deceiving in the sense that it includes in the total completed calls between midnight and even when no one was in amman or the room is or those calls was in fact minimize and then in terms of the degree of judicial oversight the court ordered the fifty media reports the court is presumed to interview the materials and what i would point out is again circling back the cases where whole thing out which is which is mean if you're throw the whole thing out that's the case and scott that's the case with charles that's the case in hofmann that's how a district court can get to a place where where a reasonable analysis of the sufficient we can look at that record and tell that there was a basis for concluding the sack with great well i think another way to look at it looking at carter looking at the other opinions i just mentioned looking into quinton is in order think were improperly minimized or this there's a pattern here or this this one call the government has this one time stepped over the line and short of that the case law supports the court's denial of a hearing it under the fourth amendment standard which i think is an abuse of discretion to hear the district court found that money money he that he failed to raise any constitutional court in any color color of the fourth amendment  clean based on the local factors and also just not feeling to identify any call that had been properly minimized so that was the first type of hearing in it to get merged i agree that the government's brief  where there's a substantial showing as we did make here and if i have to make a bigger showing that this all never get here on these wires that some of the amount of work in this is really a tremendous burden having only those p district would understand answered all the questions that church god is asking and that supervisory wolf could be accomplished and my client's rights would be protected scott involve the hearing it involves it involves the factors that might provide an adequate