serious points indeed it took the district court over one hundred dollars pages to reject them at the pleading stage the question then at this juncture is quite simple but also quite important will the president be given an opportunity to appeal that ruling before his personal records are disclosed to the grand jury and the status quo is really changed we believe that he should be given that chance is likely to succeed on  and potentially even have this case mooted in the balance of harms way strongly in favor of a stay given that the district attorney has already agreed to delay in forstmann for over a year so we respectfully request that a state pension appeal be granted but in the event of a court disagrees with the president's mission we further respectfully request that the court granted administrative stay so the president may have time to seek further review from the supreme court on this issue thank you  litigation around that in the opposition brief the district attorney now says that partial relief may be available through remedies on the other side such as returning the documents and things like that we think in a case like th when the main relief up by the president is keeping the records from being disclosed that those that relief is not meaningful but even if the court were to disagree i don't think there can be any dispute that the harm is a reparable even the district attorney's own cases say that maybe make it may come into play and that is the heightened respect that are you the president and also the necessarily meticulous with you in the case of a pr t and and what what though the question i have is wouldn't a court of appeals have to kind of give definitions of those those concepts on appeal thank your honor i think the answer is  proceeded to what ought to a procedure to which is some form of limited discovery and some meticulous review by the district court and then on appeal those cases would have been presented immediately on appeal now what happened why from your perspective an injunction isn't the appropriate relief here rather than this that a pending appeal i mean if if even if we were to stay the district court dismiss heard in the previous round in administrative stay was granted and in objecting to a further stay the district attorney never argued that it was an injunction even though we were in quite quite the same posture so i do think that the stay but i would only add finally i don't think it's an issue really that matters much at this stage as i read this court's precedent the standards are the same and in fact the district attorney relied on the same case in challenging our right to an injunction that we relied on a stay so i don't i don't think it may matter if further review was would require but i don't think it matters as great just one other question thank you and that goes to the irreparable harm element and unlawful grand jury disclosure is a felony under new law new york law but you also note that there are exceptions to this rule such as  yes i think there is a dispute there as to whether the appeal would be moot as i was discussing it with walker but i don't think we're going to dispute that it would still be a reparable the case is the district attorney relies on including the scientology case that the  circuit cites in his case and he principally relies on to this point court said the status quo is a reverently altered once the documents are disclosed even to the district attorney because you know quite  obviously you can't make them forget what they learned can't unring that bell as before circuit put it now is it possible the corporate fashion some remedy that would keep the case from going moot its possible i think  difficult because your honor not only would you have to bash and release that keeps the documents confidential but once they're in the district attorney's hand i don't i'm not suggesting at all that anyone would violate grand jury secrecy not not in the slightest what i am saying is that there are exceptions and we would have to deal with those but moreover there could be rd party requests for these documents once just like mase ours receive them and we would be in a new round  problems at that point and you could and i think it's fair to say there are innumerable people who might want to make such request and so is it possible that a court could keep the case from being mooted i can't say it's not but i think it's quite speculative and it would different one in the president was allowed to bring in a twenty three action in federal court because of the his unique status and the nature of this dispute that ruling was deposition was affirmed kaplan opinion not disturb by the supreme court and not challenging the motion to dismiss so we're already in an unusual place when you have a challenge to a state grand jury subpoena appropriately being in federal court and i don't think there's a  live dispute about whether it's appropriately in federal court therefore that raises the nd issue which is to get into federal court the president needed to file a civil action not a criminal motion at a bennett federal criminal i completely agree or on the appropriate procedure would have been emotional qua as the president been required to proceed in state criminal court again i agree a motion to quash with an appropriate but having been granted the right to come to that record because of his unique status and having to then file a civil action which he did with any confront you know all the ordinary rules of civil procedure that apply across the board and here i think again to repeat maybe what i said earlier i think the real problem was the district attorney decided to file what is a very intensely factual issue take to deal with it the pleading stage and i think likely to avoid the kind of motion aquash procedure that would happen that summary judgment submitted up a letter to the district court outlining what we thought the appropriate procedure was it looked very much like a motion to quash procedure bra perhaps almost identical and we think it should have expeditiously moved to that state and i think everything would have filed in the or we are route this case we have always accepted and not resisted expedited review it was at every stage of course it is not we don't think it's our place to dictate to the quarter or or suggest how fast a case might suggest that something along those lines we would not object to so long as a stay was in place throughout that period and indeed there was an administrative stay in place throughout the entire grieving period in the prior appeal in this court on this district attorney of new york county your honour's we submit there couldn't be a more particularly meticulous review than the district court's one hundred and three page review of the president's sixteen page complaint the district court found that the president hadn't met his burden for any element of the stay likelihood of success irreparable harm or the public interest on likelihood of success the two causes of action are based entirely on conclusory statements and implausible inferences as the district court found the most central example of that is the repeated assertion that our investigation is limited to hush money payments in two thousand and sixteen that argument underpins both his claim of over breath and the claim of bad faith but no facts in the complaint support that inference the president's complained at every turn that we've not announced what the grand jury is looking at as if that itself bad faith but of course what the grand jury is looking at is secret or not allowed to make that public which is what has led to his speculation about the grand jury scope but none of this speculation is plausible and i'll give you two quick examples why st he says that initially the trump organization received a subpoena and it was largely about hush money and it's based on that he claims the entire investigation must be limited to hush money payments later he says masers received a subpoena on a variety of other issues and since those issues weren't limited to hush money amos he says desk nd subpoena must by definition be overbroad but to use the supreme court standard in the argument violates judicial experience and common sense why take the st subpoena as the best evidence of the investigation scope why not the nd one why not both the or even also misunderstands how a grand jury works of course the focus can shift and expand over time another quick example the complaint alleges that a new york times article said early on that the investigation was looking at hush money payments but the complaint fails to mention that the to same article goes on to say that the full scope of the investigation is on clear again he asked the court to rely on a investigation and as you say the full scope is unclear so with how do you measure that that's my st question the nd measure question i have is and it's related is should there be some sort of ability to measure over involved shouldn't there be with that's not asking for a special meeting or showing a special me that's just asking for some way to measure some metric to measure overbred thank you ron or if i could take your  nd point st i beg to differ that of the presumption of validity that has long been held to apply to a grand jury subpoena should be viewed as a platitude i think it's in fact the principal answer to  your st question as the district court observed they mean obviously the law presumes that a grand jury is a ballot and issued within the scope of the grand jury's authority that's the the rug behinds case from the court of appeals in new york and and what that means is that the personal it's it's very difficult by design because of the nature of a grand jury investigation and the grand juries need to take the full scope and full review of facts under the under the cloak of secrecy on the other hand there are cases of course were overbred has been found and in those cases there has been in most cases exogamous evidence available that established that there was over breath by way of bad faith there have been cases that involve statements made by district attorney or others that show that there was no good faith basis in that kind of thing but as the presumption requires if indeed there is a challenge and the challenge does not include concrete evidence and information it's not  the burden doesn't shift to the to the prosecutor here we have there's two things that should add that the other remedy for when there is some notion or assertion actually up over breath that justifies for the review of course is that in the motion to quash cases the what's available to a court is to request an encounter submission which can which can give the court comfort that indeed there's nothing araya going on here not if i would suggest looking at  purpose other twelve b six motion but there is the china lock declaration in the record below which is that there is one in redacted form which does amount to an encounter submission and secondly we have tried to spell out consistent with grand jury secrecy all along and i can represent to the court now that each of the category of documents that we sought is directly relevant to a subject matter of our inquiry and importantly virtually all of those subject matters have been previously identified in public reports as examples of possible corporate wrongdoing in view of that i don't think there's any need for the courts here or otherwise to credit a nonspecific and non factual content entities whether or not they are in the even in this country and that it seems to me is a broadening of even what the congress had in mind and that's what i just have trouble understanding it has the feeling of overbred but there's no way to measure it and that's that's that's the problem well your honor with respect this is the breath of the subpoena here in a financial an investigation by our office is actually not unusual at all and again if the public record reflects that each of the categories we're talking about has been publicly alleged to be a transaction that involves potential criminal wrongdoing by the organization that issue the fact that we cold and i understand that that that's just within the cons of documents you're asking for it seems to me what i'm concerned about what i'm wondering about anywhere not terribly concerned about it but what i'm wondering about the is the nature is that honor i mean i think the simple answer is that again it's nothing unusual about our office or an office like ours seeking information putting aside the entities which we think all may have relevant information and we're entitled to explore a grand jury is but the important thing is that there's nothing unusual about an office like ours asking for information about out of state or indeed foreign transactions that have elements or effects in manhattan that's  jurisdiction and since of course new york city is the center of world wide commerce there's lots of international financial activity over which we have jurisdiction every day and this is not unusual in a subpoena like ours even more so if as here the company at the center of all international activity has its headquarters in manhattan that's why we have jurisdiction i submit you know the public reports we would be remiss not to be exploring all these allegations that have been made and you're welcome schedule that would be ten can and three i take it that you would also be amenable to that or this panel to grant a stay pending appeal we would not we would not object to that you we would leave it to the court obviously we have been extremely concerned about expedition at every turn and that that remains the case so if the stay were to be granted here i mean we would be even happier with a shorter schedule to be honest as my adversary indicated we are expecting any of that unless there is a reversal of the district court that we would be headed to the supreme court to in there and again we would be asking for extradition and again arguing that in fact there is no need for a state because of the lack of the reparable harm including the point that was raised earlier that there could there are remedies that could be imposed and courts have done so numerous times to put the parties back to where they were if there has been production of materials especially to a secret grand jury notwithstanding a later determination to that your honor i think that argument just ignores the practical steps the courts do take quite frequently and a case that i point you in our brief is the rd circuit case from two thousand and six in or a grand jury investigation but there are plenty of new york state cases as well upheld the complaint the remedies can include not just the destruction or return of the documents striking of testimony but yes cases courts have required the impaneling of a new grand jury so that the prior grand new grand jury is not painted by any exposure to the earlier materials and yes there have been cases where the requirement was imposed that a new prosecution team be put in place that doesn't have any potential taint from exposure to the prior materials i think these are and in a situation like this given the history here and the harm that we are experiencing every day by way of delay suggest that we should be willing i submit to anticipate these kind of remedies and get and get the documents and get on with our and as it does the court observed i think it's fair to say in passing motion aquash would be the more typical is his was his words and i say perhaps more appropriate proceeding as to your honor is concerned as to whether it could lead to you know a precedent setting trend where people are bringing the civil actions in response to a grand jury subpoenas i do think that the fact that it's president seeking to invoke nine one hundred and eighty three dollars which is obviously very unusual probably limits the presidential value of this but the bottom line is that although i think a motion to quash would have been more procedurally appropriate you're correct that we are not seeking to have this court converted to a motion or otherwise impose a higher standard that would be associated with a motion to quash because we think that the president has plainly failed to meet the four corners of the complaint test under twelve b six and we think that the simple answer here is to dismiss on that basis thank you thank you both feel for your arguments and you can expect something from us by the end of the day i think you if you're honest