revenue service agent who accused him of wandering drug money and demanded that he turn the money over on those funds and cooperate with him in some sort of investigation mr o'brien wasn't wondering and in other ways turn turn him over again he refused to do something that he had not done r s a agents went to his boss as his boss there and basically kept him at the same level for section sixty one of three says you can't make a disclosure ok basically and seventy four thirty one i believe says that if you make a disclosure you can get damage order to improperly collect tax then there's damage just related there and when preparing a complaint and more importantly when i was reviewing facts in a back room when i was going over it i was thinking that i understood if i brought it under seventy four thirty one the sections as you just violated talking to somebody else it wouldn't give the full impact of the context in which this occurred what was happening was the internal revenue service to agents from internal revenue service allegedly went to this man and were using certain statements about him in order to collect taxes under seventy four thirty one you could make to give it up if you go to the third thing which is if you don't do those things think they will go to your boss and your boss and your problems which you know we would have problems because normally stock brokerage firms start like they have you know people that are wondering what money i don't know but they had a plan and the plan was directly to feign that money through collection the method of collecting that money was to approach him the mansion tell him that he owed taxes which is sixty three  could move to him in two sections other sections what would apply and i think there's a liberal reading under you know federal civil procedure fifteen on amendment in a particular case or even without  of ties and specific specific sections but instead we want we want facts and then when when we got the order dismissing our case he basically came back and said he didn't give us sections even though he had asked you know before pro conduct on that and we believe it's our point of view there in that case which is kind of a reverse of what you're talking about  there would be a due process violation because certain things that they had already said we had planned correctly all of the sudden became things that weren't properly played and we were we were dismissed hours and we did mention that many think that would be  tax return information in the remote precincts from which i am in a court makes that clear on a repeated basis and sometimes even lectures district judges about saying that the whole notion of federal pleading judges and the government to try and piece their case together it's you know you've got to have two sides to every issue and they've got to and they're doing what they want to do it's like i don't know i suppose you could  be granted under section seventy four three so they set the parameters and the answer to that is clearly not because their damages do not iraq is from a tax collection matter they claim that there's information allegedly about the source of money which ought to have included not you know return which then passed within the definition of return information  it's always the i r s running amok doing something that they shouldn't but congress has provided a remedy for that and i guess that's my difficulty with your argument on the merits of why this now cl sells more like a seventy four thirty one claim that the seventy four thirty three that it's not been explored they don't want to proceed under unless somebody forces them to proceed and so therefore thirty somebody would give them any opportunity we guess we can find maybe we can clarify this are you telling us that you do not want to pursue the seventy four thirty one no we would we would love to pursue any claim that with allow us to be in court