of the attorney work would be tantamount to to communication a confidential communication regarding his client with his client and that's the standard i think they  originally established and rejecting hodgins y and other prior cases that i've said the focus should be on ing incrimination whether the client would incriminate it so we don't contend and we don't have a position as to whether incriminates mr card but we do think it's private communication should not be required of his lawyer in this particular case and under seal there are the scant documents that he had mr rockhead  consisting of two checks and that he's on the affidavit he put in his declaration and the court below in those documents i think it checks explain why under these circumstances he feels and client feels mr believe that used by your client i believe so i believe so and again the question isn't whether they know it already or whether it's privileged but whether it's proper to extract it from the lawyer and that's why that's why we raised the issue in this particular case and we also raised the sixth amendment claim they have not fared well in this court but we raised it anyway because there were circumstances at the time the motion to quash was brought that seemed to us to justify  really after representing the card for two years when he served in kansas with the subpoena and we felt and feel that this was an interference with the relationship of the parties with the cornerstone of which is trust and confidence and the idea that entering into such a trial that my lawyer if i'm for card is called upon to produce evidence that may be used against me is very distressing and undermines the foundation of the sixth amendment guarantee  felt it incumbent on us to raise it in this particular case because of those circumstances now whether the circumstances if the court were to feel that that that raised a valid claim at the time whether the circumstances are sufficiently changed may be a matter for the district court to look into he's representing him i don't know the details but there are still a relationship between those parties he mr roark represents that he feels the appeal has many valid material points client privilege it's a little i'm not a disadvantage because i haven't seen the documents but based on the colloquy both in this court with this court it's my understanding that it relates to alias information and that information is known to the government now i'm what in the world doesn't mean let's say the government knows that i am a murderer but my attorney  information that demonstrates indeed i am a murderer i suppose just because the government knows that's true can't get that information promoted turning around correct so why would it make any difference if the government knows anything make it x knows x but it wants to get confirmation from my attorney that x is true where you start off with the general principle that fear arranging information is not the information hypothetical case like this provides the last link in the chain that establishes the government's case it helps for example prove money laundering is a doctrine called the last link doctrine and i'm aware generally of the doctrine i know that there's cases that say there's there is a doctor called the last week doctor and then there are cases that say well it's really no different than all the other general principles we've been saying about  there's with respect to rawls and the hershey case rolls did have an identity component to it but it wasn't the only thing there the subpoena there asked for identity and all kinds of feet they are information also and a discussion by the court in my view actually break this did not really limit the principle that enunciated which was that the information sought could be inextricably bound up with privileged communications did not really limit that strictly to an identity situation alone hersch was a case where the call the court was concerned about an attorney being used as a conduit for unlawful funds and the concern there seemed to drive the decision was really the concern that wasn't legitimate feet at all but it was government wants and they would probably use it in kansas he would be a very bad for the relationship of the turning point was that to happen and a tornado which was cited by the prosecutor was different because in tornado that person h government to agree to a protective order and they wouldn't do it in the court but mr work would have complied had that happened if you think both counsel their arguments quite helpful case just argue will be