pole in this case michael rose bar we raise three issues in this appeal and i would like to discuss the st issue and that is whether the district court err in limiting cross examination regarding whether evidence that was and provided to the government was gathered by a private service and or by an agent of the government now the th amendment does guarantee quite to cross examination but the right is not without limit superior court and as a result of these suits mr brooks subpoenaed information bank records as well as phone records and a month there was the owner of the what's wrong with that because if the if the individual is acting as an agent of the government and the feds therefore a th amendment protections apply well that is the court may not turn to ruling here that even you know it wouldn't matter all in the hands of rd part right but i think the whole point was that the judge was acting under the belief that mr brooks was a private citizen and therefore why does his th amendment interest protected interest and for example the phone is there's all kinds of evidence that sways the testimony of jurors of people don't have th amendment interest right but mr brooks actually tracked down these particular people by using the phone records why he got i still don't understand what what mr rose bars th amendment interest in the phone records was his his interest in the phone records was that the those records were used to know what privacy what what what case do you have that recognizes a th amendment privacy interest privacy interest protected by the  amendment in the phone or i will say i have nothing regarding the phone has been the bank records the bank records we have the privacy act which you didn't raise until your reply brief it was that raised the district or no it response to the miller case now of these congress can't tell the supreme court that it was an error but i think that congress by and acting in this particular case can create statutory rights but not far from the rights i think that is that is congress's way of saying that this is in fact a protected right and you are correct this was not raised this was not raised below i believe cower in your opening  right and i think that it was counsel's belief below that that the judge was saying that there was no th amendment protected right in these things because mr brooks was a but was a civilian was not an agent of the government and i think the bottom line here is that what did the government have to lose by allowing brief cross examination on this doing all of this because he wanted mr rose are in jail not because he wanted his thirty thousand dollars back because he wanted him locked up and that is why he kept going through the officers through the investigators providing this information i believe it was a u p s clerk going through i was being paid to go through packages looking for drugs and they held that that was improper and illegal because the person was an agent of the government now here witness testimony during the hearing the question that the court was addressing was whether to hold an evidentiary hearing at all on this question about brooks's involvement in the government's investigation in this case and the district court said that he didn't need to hold never bansuri hearing and they gave a number of reasons one of those reasons as the court pointed out earlier this morning was its holding that there was no for the men buckman violation