based upon this information the government verified the calls and determined that in fact defendant had many calls both to the cooperator and then shortly after the phone call excuse me to cooperate as counsel and shortly after the call to cooperate as counsel i made a call to his own counsel based on that information as well as information regarding that counsel in a separate matter the government determined that it would initiate investigator will responsible for the investigation that was information that was provided to the fence at the time of the initial hearing so really it doesn't depend on the in camera declaration alone it also includes information that had previously been provided now based upon this investigation the defendant are argues one of two things either that discovery was warranted as a need further development of a sixth amendment claim or possibly it is what this report actually ordered which was that discovery should be imposed as a sanction for what the government had done because it had used a codefendant in order to contact counsel you either way we believe that that interference with the right to counsel it is not an interference under the court's case law because what the court is talking about in cases such as most recently the fernandez case i'm going back to one wanting in  interference with counsel that was directed strictly towards disrupting the relationship it does not talk about whether or not there isn't an independent offense that might be under investigation and i wanted it appeared to be i mean the fenceline was it was  disturbing well i grant you your i know for myself not before addressing the legal point i want to recognize that of course there are serious issues here and we recognize that there are risks and that is why we tried to set up a separate team in order to investigate  are available to the government and and i think taken to its natural conclusion to take the position that because of the risks this is something that cannot be engaged in and the only alternative is not to do anything at all and in that kind of a situation i'm sorry that i think in that kind of a situation there is the potential for other harms to alliance which would be potentially a witness who might be influenced or other a chance that might be taken to influence a witness but the government ha that's perhaps there should be a direct contact with mr washington that were directly raised and that's part of contract issue another i think the suggestion was that there should be a search conducted that has two problems associated one of you know i would appreciate something for your time that you address the sanction issue i understand that you you've got a challenge to the discovery being proper other words you your position is there was no prejudice to wasserman because you had separate teams and a little more complicated than that but it seems to me it boils down to that and there is precedent that would say there has to be substantial prejudice but it would have even been the initial contact from mr wasserman directly to mr stamp and that was potentially something that the government could use in order to impeach or as well as actually direct evidence of guilt because if the defense was interested in paying the fees and paying for bail for the cooperate or that would tend to be evidence of guilt trial but the court could entertain suppressing either that call or suppressing the subsequent  a threshold showing of entitlement to it that is he presented some evidence under armstrong tending to the existence of a violation of his rights and he presented that evidence in the form of the evidence that the government was that mr wasserman was deeply concerned about whether he could continue to maintain his confidence in mr richards and that mr richards was thrust into the role of a witness into the case because how else w cassidy or cross examine the case agent or plan his own litigation strategy without alluding to or making himself a witness to this very disturbing conduct on behalf of the government in the context of his own honor how could he cross examine miss cassidy for example by saying something like didn't you call me when isn't there is there nothing that you wouldn't do to reduce your own sentence as part of your cooperation agreement cards all the time they can be subject to criminal investigation like anybody and certainly your honor but there are two points here first of all in order to make the discovery order proper all that mr wasserman had to show was a threshold some evidence tending to show a violation and presidents get some discovery that doesn't necessarily answer the question we may come to that whether these questions are all justified by the situation but i'll accept your basic proposition and so what i would argue your honor is that if this evidence isn't some evidence tending to show the existence then i don't know what is threshold showing entitle you to discovery would be to go back to your honest question about it with the government didn't simply refuse to answer the questions the government in fact answered most of the question leave the government to put the judge on notice before all this began so the government was aware that this is an unusual situation it's not like they acted lightly no they didn't act lines like they acted with full knowledge of the delicate situation that this was and i mean investigative methods there are lots of things that the government could have done that would never have inserted itself into what the fourth circuit pissed cause this sacred relationship between the attorney and his client there are lots of things that could have done also is sort of indicative to show where that where the court in that case rejected the government's sort of blanket assertion blanket rejection of anything else and said that there were lots of ways that the government could have investigated that lawyers client without inducing the lawyer to try to entrap the client on her own with the government's now so it's there's no presumption of regularity that applies to the government's investigative methodology and so lawyer in a context where the u s attorney's office had other reasons independent of your client to be concerned about this lawyer now to pursue that it seems to me that your client's case kind of screams out for attention of your client that made that phone call indictment seems bizarre to me frankly i mean that's like punishing the public long of the u s attorney if it is wrong and you know it this is a very serious indictment and involves repeated criminal offenses of a serious nature that hurt a lot of people is is that the only sanction of simming that he does that the discovery order is wrong for the government stopping at nineteen answers was beyond the pale and they should answer the other seven you know if that's true was dismissing the indictment the only sanction that the did show any real analysis of all to well i think you and i am i missing something there you know your honor the court's order was very brief but so then it doesn't mean anything to us and i won't something but it made that argument but what evidence is to be excluded here it's hard to see what evidence on should be excluded because the government never really made a showing about exactly what evidence it was withholding of professional responsibility for example but dismissal was appropriate for this reason and that is that because there's no way to tell what kind of taint the to answering seven questions out of the twenty six on grounds of deliberating gridley well eventually your honor they certainly didn't do it in the course in their opposition to the discovery motion or in their discussion during the hearing on the discovery motion but only