there that orders saying this reporter doesn't have privilege with respect to interviewing people about you think that teleporter is barred from doing anything if he gets some information out about some other take boss really think good who could don't see how you can say it's right there's nothing before us there's nothing that has held him back in any way shape or form to do anything that he wants to do and the right to do it there's no order that says he can't get order in the kelly case  is this case because the r kelly case is over is this case right or anything is there anything now that's actually where the court it's even right and the other issue is was given when you read there were three components there were three components in this little colloquy that occurred between you and judge it on one of them had to do with the reporter privilege one of them had to do with his first amendment rights and then he dismissed those by basically saying you know i've looked at the subpoenas and i have looked at everything and this is a question of a man who has made probably a material witness so we discounted the weren't sources the appropriate way to test that first two parts of his rule was not to take the fifth and knock them both out was to stand on his first two arguments one that his sources were protected by the statute and that coincidentally he was a special witness and to he had a first amendment right to protect ok it was to argue he could testify the question is is to get yourself into a position where the only alternative for judge would have been to order him jail until he complied with the court's order whatever that order might be take the fifth or testify that's probably what would have happened you could have refused to do that then you come back and now you've got your reassures clearly before the appellate court because he's in jeopardy it's like taking the fifth ok see and i go back to the young days we were both young lawyers down in springfield but you know when i know that everything in that whole life your decision about special witnesses is that it wasn't necessary to decide the case it was just it was ju that why he should have refused if he were going to logically logically proceed to get the issue with respect to his reportorial status for not telling or he should have refused to take the fifth which was an option offered to him at which point judge grant would have said and i know i judge gone would have done he would have said i'm ordering you to jail until you testified i stayed my order to allow you to take and now you're up here on the and you say i'm a reporter and i have a secret you know i know are the politician x has a girlfriend named girlfriend why but that's privilege because it was given to be as a indicate he was taking his exercising he was like answering the question he was giving up his reporter's privilege he was giving up the rights of the special with witness judge i have no the only thing i can do is to respectfully refuse to comply with your and the judge would say well i'm making you a material witness you can take the fifth no i don't want to  and that sets up the confrontation which leads to the contempt which leads to the appellate court well he asserted all this  privilege we want to win great so we would like this court to change the grounds and still give us a written but on different grounds essentially one witness was subpoenaed one witness a stepped up and asserted a privilege and that this is privilege was respected and that with this was excused now counsel talks about turning over the records except the record will show the record in the appellate court will show that there was no producing of the records when the report himself or one counsel was asked counsel said we're appealing your order everything has to be sealed until until the appeal comes down in the court said no by there was some colloquy with counsel and due to some confusion that might have arisen the court appeal return date to the next day june fourth and at that time the court made it very clear that your client is to appear in your client to bring certain documents so that i can review them in camera to determine whether we even have a search issue and ju fourth the client did appear with counsel and did not bring any of the records and the court asked about then said you are under a clear danger to appear with these records and the response was we're going to be asserting privileges and we're not just saying the first amendment we're going to be asserting these other privileges and so after some short break we'll counsel worked out the procedure the procedure was that counsel asked his client the intervenor a reporter here the questions and the answers were given as there is the public policy heard you make that this is likely to recur in other contexts and the trial courts are perhaps would welcome i'm sure they would welcome our opinion on the special with this issue as applicable to reporters well that is entirely within the power of this court to decide right this is a sufficiently important public interest to discuss and to give guidance to the lower courts and i'm not suggesting that we don't have the people i wondered whether that question would come up with you yes i read your brief in my brief i stated that the concern that the people half is that in cases like this at least in my research of the cases that involve the press issues trial level you kept saying we don't want to get involved help it's not that we want to get involved in a particular subpoena we want to share a little bit like i push it that it in my concern is always when an appeal comes in  affects the people's interest throughout the state and then when i can get permission from the office i will certainly write a brief in response and that's really my goal here i'm not going to defend what the defense counsel or the speculation of the apple rod here about why a particular subpoena was filed for the categories that it had with the court but my concern is simply that if this court chooses to consider this and frankly i think this is as moot as a gets you come in you respond to a subpoena you raise your not even to have to respond until someone goes to court and essentially meets the omens that the legislature would have them be as they assert a privilege you see to nearly evidence this entire to come into a case unless someone comes in and says traveling the rights of the press but the united states supreme court has said that if you are a material witness if you have observed a crime if you if you insert yourself into a case that information is not subject to the first amendment we don't have to reach that level so we don't have a first amendment protection so then the pulse your opinion kind of looks at this this notion of us who is a special witness and i'll bet of the cases that are cited are always participating attorneys or judges  and that was an attorney that was a judge case and that just says you know here's what possible stands for so no ryan as far as i can tell you is citing that case for any for any purpose other than that there is such a thing called the special witness soccer and then applying it to attorneys and judges so that's the common law basis the statutory basis is the source of privilege which like every other privilege you come in to quit and you will search that process will turn that on its head basically exactly what counsel is advocating here and saying i don't even have to appear because the burden is on the person who's trying to use compulsory process and i will say why not representing a defendant here as a minister of justice there is a sixth amendment right to compulsory process analyze the issue of whether there's a privilege so that is the process but but possible turns that process on its head and says proponent of a subpoena you have to meet all the elements essentially of that privilege just to get the  consideration i'm not saying you can't consider this i'm saying this case especially is moot for the reason there is no relief he won on one of the privileges he raised and the court excuse him on that privilege and as to the remainder those are not right instead questions he asked walk questions relating to source interviews conducted after it given the paperwork it was only because they wanted to put the reporter on trial artificially narrow view of the definition of source basically said it had to be a person not the means and then it found itself with the reporter experiment and said well you know