the going investigation is there still a grand jury hearing testimony this case are due to the best of my knowledge and belief there is no grand jury hearing any evidence in this case although i'm not exactly would have been december of last year january this year and even that was based on some delays for people who had health problems and other problems who were originally do not make here well of course we don't make that claim here because we still haven't seen the search for an affidavit but what in my view makes this a pretty easy case is the authorization for the seizure of even press members we've never been told how there could possibly be probable cause to believe that the name of prospect of members the government we have only sought to when he joined the use of the membership information that was not legally so i and we've never heard how that membership is measured has anything to do with the criminal tax the searches and seizures in the warrants exceed the growth of the probable cause to occur in a little bit puzzled what i hear you say is that you want and injunction to restrain the government from using certain may or may not be relevant we can't help you don't know what charges are but let's assume for the sake of argument that those rights are somehow relevant without regard to the first amendment issue and and i don't understand why that doesn't  e injunctive relief against the government to prevent them from doing something in their investigation the problem i have your honor is with your assumption and with the fact that there's absolutely nothing to support the assumption nothing zero a complete what the government has never even contended and in fact they can't really contend that the membership information is relevant to the criminal investigation because instead they took what seems to me to be the mutually exclusive path of claiming the turn title to get a sort of court is that obviously they can't protect their own interest in anonymity by naming themselves and then claiming iraq and then me therefore the question is do they have any rights to anonymity or don't they they have expressed an interest in the materials disseminated but the number of people who have acquired materials and become members is nearly seventy thousand so that the prospect of members would be i'm sure less than five percent of that but the government has seized the membership information and they could presumably give you the the numbers  would be resolved at that point it never proceeds to criminal charges if it doesn't proceed to criminal charges that information would be returned to the point which is what they are seeking a return of the information they would get  upon the determination of the government as to whether or not to return the property that rule forty one of the law and that's what should occur if there's no prosecution the government would not have a reason presumably to keep that information should return and there has been no real forty one the motion filed in this recognizing that we're dealing with a grand jury investigation and what can you tell us about what the status is of the ongoing investigation i have to make it very clear to the piano that i have to follow we understand rule investigation of global there have been approximately sixteen people who have been indicted convicted or have pled guilty so there has been progress in connection with the investigation although is making i believe that the warrants in this case talked about membership information and i don't know that they made a distinct distinction between actual  its i'll help you a little bit if in the briefing i thought that there was reference to paragraph twenty one which appears that excerpt of record forty one i'm trying to suggest the answer but i think i read other portions of the warrant and wondered whether that was the government's position well certainly i think that we referenced excerpt of record forty paragraphs eighteen documents items to be seized applications for membership membership cards membership agreements that that was what caught my eye when i read the affidavit which is why i heard that the war itself which is why i asked the question so you're saying it's more than just twenty believe separate issue so that came maybe i'm confused here from reading the record i understood that at some point during the search one of your searching agents had a conversation with the assistant u s attorney yes about whether or not they could see certain things then it's ridiculous to suggest that there's any need to point a loaded weapon at somebody who walks out of their house there were a dozen other asians as many as fifteen twelve to fifteen agents were there with agent worthy their guns were all drawn and when  false questions about when are well six years from some date maybe we'll get a chance but what if there is no you know indictment here it's been two and a half years no indictment as to your client and the other because of their association with the institute of global prosperity that's the reason why the government did it not for the government talks about that injunction but that's specifically for heavy we don't want at least might think a lot is that the government is prohibited from utilizing search warrant where the government uses prospect of members so again we did not come up with that term it's actually noted on page six of our opening brief footnote twelve we quote from the and if the government is not releasing the membership lists then what harm is there to these people it seems to me that the harm you're really talking about is they don't want their name to be known to the internal revenue service because they might membership list for but i mean what other purposes my question is you were talking about protecting their rights to an annuity yes and at this point there has been no disclosure of any of these people's names i haven't heard that my understanding is the government feels income tax are i want to be able to tell them oh by the way your name is not going to go directly the irish to somebody who ought to be audited but i guess i couldn't do that because the government can go ahead and seize number list although i'm not aware of