he's right to disseminate information mr durban is going to handle the issue of the originals versus the copies as well as the first amendment rights of other individuals the issues here you wish to to a lot of similarly situated defendants in the sense that they have property that is seized by the government but at the end of the criminal case they may have a fine or restitution order and what what disposition of their property takes place the general while the basic principles clear that when the government when the case is over and the property is no wonder used for evidence or possibly use for evidence it's returned to the defendant unless the government that is not sufficient to override mr kaczynski is interest in the property for the primary reason is because they are not using any of the property or to obtain restitution in order to pay the victims under the government's proposal the victims will obtain no money whatsoever from any of mr kaczynski is properly and and that is true  referred to using crack already selling property that would be returned money that would go to the victims and all three of those cases cited by the government and involved actual cash that the terms of any interviews writings any artifacts any memorabilia that he has to return that money over to the government in order to satisfy the restitution order presumably again to go to the victims back is that correct it's true now apparently his contention is there are some of the pages that were badly copied or a been damaged or whatever yet let me make this flush out the question finish up question and that's to the extent originals versus the copies but second there's approximately we believe about seventy eight thousand pages that document that issue over a thousand pages of his journals  thousands of other pages of other writings letters correspondence to family and friends as well as letters and course correspondence from their families and friends when all private practitioner the federal defender's office has these copies right now i spoke with a legal assistant at federal defenders office they told that he told me that when the cake when  why can't either you or the s t d or whoever his counsel happens to be assist him in the process of making his sort of copies complete we can we can do that but it's going to take an extraordinarily  amount of time to do that a large number of documents there at the university of michigan library they're understaffed they said they don't really have the time and situations to take that kind of  difficult for authority have to have the originals it would like the original  together and available for the public but to compare their boxes of materials that they have now to a complete that would be very difficult very time consuming to do it take you know weeks but counsel i guess what i don't understand it must be missing something what does anybody want want to do with the the government is has never stated that they would make the originals available to historians researchers profit from having his property returning him or his paper sensor university machine a library i think the paramount value here of importance should be to get the highest value of restitution to the victims it is not profit in any monetary sense he did not receive any money if he did receive any money it would have to be returned over to the victims to pay for restitution the cases the government the issue of the value of the originals and the value of the government turning over the originals to the version of michigan library and this all ties in with the restitution or interest that the government has asserted but essentially ignored over the last several years impinge on their rights to do so now in addition to the inaction of the government has demonstrated over the last several years and in not making any moves towards satisfying the restitution order in place here you also have their arguments both below and on  well the message of social protest as far as the words on the page could conceivably be satisfied by the simple words on the page of a photocopy but the information to which the public has a right of access  just the words on the page it's the contestable aspects and three dimensional aspects of the documents the paper use the type of ink the condition and age of the paper itself bindings loose leaves all of these sorts of ancestral environmental clues to the train researcher and scholar provide insights into the environment and the age and the conditions under which these words were written and given no certainly what mr kosofsky because he's done is reprehensible but it's hard to deny that as a historical figure there's at least some historical interest here and given that the conditions in which he wrote much of a material in this tiny one room cabin in montana it's hard for for anybody to the first amendment would have that determination be made by the public and by scholars and by researchers rather than than the government in this case and accordingly to meet these concern here is that the stated restitution area for the government is relied on it's public's first amendment rights itself of course that's drawn a straw from a number of straightforward first amendment rights and this court of the supreme court of consistently recognized where government action impinges on the individual is more valuable i'm not sure i can see why the first amendment interest in originally so much greater interest in nk in the paper and things like that are usually online and see a reason facsimile of the declaration of independence but there's a reason why they travel to the national archives to see the original that's just a piece of paper it's just one of the originals one of the originals that's right there were several original there are self there's presidential libraries original papers of presidents are housed as well and while anybody could get a photocopy of it there's a provenance in our of the original that adds value that constitutes information to which the public has a right of access if the materials back he would be able to do with them as he pleases no binding enforceable restraints on their use we would as a mickey we would certainly do our best to make sure and implore him the importance of as at least as regards the public's right to evaluate them for historical or scholarly input but again the primary concern here is the government action of sitting on these four arrests in spite of here crimes and as the court has noted there is no first amendment issue here your honour's united states has consistently told gave all of these documents to mr you can since he's defense counsel in the criminal case when they p everything from my cabin there is bomb making materials there says use clothing what the united states wants to do is secured creditors we want to redeem we basically want that you want to sell them for notoriety value no we don't well then what no no no let me explain your honour's and i think you will have less trouble than mr ballast had with this there is this is the court the low motion in his rule forty one motion he said if you pay my debt to someone else you are giving me the money we said fine this is his property let's look at his property as if this were john doe secured creditors how they may dispose of collateral in their possession when there is an outstanding that that isn't the fault in this is the situation that we have here i understand you correctly what you want to do is have some sort of a sale  creditors sale of privately specified that it's worthless you know we have to have a private sale and we want to pay something and usually we were going to give them a credit and then we then they were correcting pointed out if he gets the credit there is no benefit to his victims so huge restitution gap that he's never going to get out from under it all you're doing is keeping victims from getting money counsel let me ask a little differently in what little spare time i have i like to read about history in psychology it would seem to me this material has a great deal of that you not like gold bullion but to historians and psychologists to see was in that little cabin and what he wrote how he wrote it scribbles what's on all this i don't understand why the government says it has no since you don't want to sell it at celebrity value and reduce its debt because you say that's profit why the government wishes to lock this way in save some place and do nothing with your hon states keeps the scars on my be able to examine it can i ask this question what's the government's restitution plan and where would i go to find i'm sorry what is the government's restitution someplace you describe what you want to do have you set down anywhere in writing or otherwise what the government's playing in the us no other words we plan to have a private  where you asked during the proceedings before the magistrate judge you or before the district court to provide a restitution point you know i was not we are following states so there is an assumption here that we're going to do something terrible and i don't think there's anything on the record that justifies that assumption i think you know there's nothing on the record to suggest what you are going to do because that it was not the instrument that question is yes that's correct your honor because that was not part of the rule for you in motion ok thank you thank you points first of all this is the first time today after numerous griefs before the magistrate judge in the district court that the government has ever said they have any restitution plan and intention to actually give money to the victims with respect to that plan they should the accepted regular practice is to follow the procedures for enforcing tax liens as the magistrate judge suggested in his order which is to make them the property available to the highest either which would provide the most amount of money to the victims or restitution if that's the real interest the statute specifically says that if there's if the property is not have enough value