a taxpayer to protect his attorney client privilege in this case if the government would have issued a grand jury subpoena or a summons the taxpayer would have had the right to go in and say wait a nd this is turning client material that you're trying to get from my previous attorney and that the key right there that you are trying to get because we don't know what what the attorney we don't know what was exchanged by the attorney and the agent do we know we know no all we know is that the that  your client threatened and advised former business partner that i've been with an agent you know all the threats we know about you know that's all that's all we have at bar here we don't have any do we do we have any way of knowing the point of all that since this was told the six motion and my amended complaint should have been taken  true in the amended complaint i allege that he had turned a client material and we did not want the government to question him but the fact that he has attorney client material doesn't mean  divulged no it doesn't mean that he divulge it when i'm trying to do is prevent the government from receiving it the government's position is that as long as an attorney or anybody has privilege material and feels like they want to give it to the government i can't do anything about it the government agent right isn't it undisputed that the agent said you can't give me attorney client material and he is i mean is that undisputed it's i know what i can give you and what i can't i mean so this if you want to say this is if the government was asking joe felt co owners might pose in council about attorney client privilege we could assume that we would say no i can't do that but mr goodman i mean i'm maybe i'm assuming the opposite but he's he's a not assuming a lot are you not kewell the client privilege information from him and i know what's done is done but in the future we asked them not to receive it i think that what i would have had to do is ask the district court and this is not a common case and i think i would burden a court maybe to appoint a special master maybe two are you asking courts just to police generally attorneys talking to the government i think that when you have  an attorney who is playing he isn't going to follow the rules and we cannot rely on his good faith that the courts should intervene and he says he isn't when he says he isn't going to follow the rules but this court hardly ever deals with people's minds and what we think they might do someday which is what you're what you brought befor interesting i know that my position is is that we have this rogue attorney who wants to give the government all of the privileged information what about what about this concrete point that you know we don't know any of this stuff but don't we know one thing for sure that if the government tries to use attorney client privilege information you can stop them at that point other words even assume the worst that the government is going to do this which seems to me unfair but let's just say they do likely by mistake they they just they define it one way and you say no wait wait that is classic attorney client won't that just stop it in its tracks i don't think for i made it and i know and that's not true you can't use that information in a tax prosecution so so i don't know there was a are you afraid they're going to gossip about it i if the government used it and that's where you have a remedy is the government in this case won't give us assurances that it will that it will not seek attorney client privilege material from there that's quite because they don't know how the conversation is going to unfold i think they're being very fair minded they can't make a promise they can't deliver on because how do they know if in the course of the conversation this lawyer doesn't just say something they didn't ask for it that's but they get it anyway you still have not concretely explained why you can't protect your client's interests if the information is used i'm just not getting it in the need to be more specific if you're going to make headway at these with me that is how it's done right in any case where a even a right a constitutional right is violated the way we remedy it is excluding evidence after the fact we don't know police things before the fact jury subpoenas or before the if you have a summons that you're arguing about an ira summons like an up john or one of those cases the courts do look at ahead of time and say is this is this  should we let this go to the government at otherwise why why would we even have a summons and foresman we would just say i'll give them everything and then later on we can just that's because there's a lawsuit between two parties and we have a lawsuit between two parties you subject yourself to discovery and it's then that the attorney client stuff comes up in your argument to me is a can to there's a trial your opponent is mr goodman you go to the trial judge you say you can't trust this guy i promise you a closing he is going to mention stuff that's not in the record don't let him have a closing argument that's the remedy and the judge would say i'm sorry he's a license practitioner yes he's a little row but if he does that we'll deal with it then when they don't say no closing arguments for you i think the court would instruct and instruct mr goodman at that point say look at him i'm warning you don't do that i mean we have had there not been warnings enough here i mean everyone knows you've told them what you're worried about at this point you've got to trust the government to be straight about it and when they think there's a remedy that's the point right yet they're not straight about it there are remedies available i think that but but if mr goodman just feels like disclosing anything i don't have any remedy the government can i'm not sure what i said about understand in answer to judge cox early question what like what remedy are you asking for you asking for a court to say don't leave a bad boy because he clearly can talk to the government now wants right you're not disputing that he had told her that whole silly st amendment thing  when we have a when we have a guy like mr but we've got your argument thank you mr nader thank you may please the court tepper snyder for the united states of america in a case like this one where a tax pair is trying to enjoying the i r s from using certain information in an audit the entire injunction at bars the suit essentially what the gay times are asking is that the district court supervise their audit which strikes at the heart of the anti injunction act and therefore the district court  pretty bad guy good man right and i think you would concede he's got some issues so i mean don't they aren't isn't their concern at least legitimate that he's going to i mean he's done a lot of bad things i think that's pretty clear i mean why aren't they why isn't their concern legitimate that he's going to spill a bunch of attorney client from so on the facts of this case the complicating factor is that he was a business partner as well as an attorney and speaking to business partners during audits is actually something that the iris probably should do and a key came to them and said i have information from the public record i have information from a private investigator and the revenue agent i think it's kind of a straw man argument to say that the government is relying on goodman to police themselves although they did ask him to do that but it's also clear that the revenue agent asked him you know don't believe don't release privileged information she consulted with her manager she consulted with iris counsel so this is not a situation where the i r s is affirmatively seeking attorney client privilege information and as the court observed a little earlier if the i r s were to end up with attorney client privilege information the remedy is that the evidence would be excluded in a later case on the merits of the gaitonde tax liability so it's not that they're without a remedy it's just that the remedy is not to have consistent district court oversight of an audit it's that the government would not be able to use the evidence iris do you can imagine a situation where you know you have a relationship between a wealthy couple doesn't go well it ends badly one side is better and wants to make life miserable for their former partner does the i r s welcome those conversations so someone shows up at the door and says boy do i have a lot of dirt on my former spouse about all the taxes they're not paying and where they're hiding all their money and towards the ira's take the view we should stay out of this well st i don't actually know but i'm not sure whether there's anything if that there's anything that would prevent the i r s from talking to former spouses you know i don't think there's a rule that says the summer of this in the sense that you have someone with an axe to grind but also someone with a lot of information well i think it's true generally that informants whistleblowers that not that that's this case i mean people may have an axe to grind on and i think the i r s would probably consider that in you know considering the veracity of the information but i don't think there's any rule that the government can only talk to saints so you know they're trying to create an exception for this situation because they allege that there's a client privilege to information that goodman will reveal they haven't pointed to any specific attorney client privilege information that he has revealed and essentially what they're trying to do is just prove interfere with the i r s as information gathering process which this court held in dickens is off limits you know that basically if the i is trying to use information that the taxpayer claims was unlawfully disclosed to the i r s or even in other cases where it's the subject of an illegal search warrant the remedy is not to hamstring the audit the remedy would be later on the merits case on the tax liability and they would have if they get a notice of deficiency which they did for one of the two years their remedy for prepayment remedy is going to tax court or they could pay it and then go to the district court opposing counsel brought up summons and for some cases and that's true that if the i r s were to issue a summons then congress has specifically given the court's jurisdiction to adjudicate summons proceeding but that's because congress has created that as one remedy and you know it's certainly true that privilege issues can be litigated in summon cases but that's not what we have here what we have here is an i r s audit which and the audit process really falls within any definition of assessment including that in direct marketing although they haven't raised that but so the williams packing exception which they rely on does not apply because they have an adequate alternate remedy of having the evidence excluded in court and also because there's certainly no way that they can show that the government is won't prevail because they haven't even pointed to any privileged information that was a disclosed to address these perhaps factual allegations that the court was relying on you can give me the how that's prejudice you what with these affidavits say well we would have  given more detail about mr goodman and what he said and and i think i think gilding the lily is a funny way to talk about someone who doesn't behave well but that seems to me that's the phrase that came to mind you don't think you've established well enough that he wasn't a good actor yes i did we did we established that he was a good actor but so tell me how you are prejudiced by not putting in affidavits well didn't you follow a motion to reconsider which is the court which is very limited to see that the the court made a made a mistake but we didn't have a chance to but in that you could have included anything you want