is a black civil rights leader and civil rights worker and father of dr martin luther king and he was murdered during the occupation of wounded knee in the one nine hundred seventy three june we're challenging and that is that it's our contention that the f b i failed to do an adequate search for the june and how did they how do we know that what is deficient about what stated in the now if you look at that and you look at what mr hardy said the search they did the initial search they did was they went and manually looked where the june mail should have been and it wasn't there and then a year away or they indicate that they again mort but there's no specifics as to what they did or or what they they just said they want and couldn't find it again a year l understand i thought the june mail system was discontinued at a certain point and then the follows were reintegrated into the normal files and what i read is affidavit what he said was that it was discontinued and some of the dyed commits are integrated into the main index so that there'd be an index and that's where they found the fact that there is a doc but that didn't as far as my reading of everything and i don't think the affidavit said anything different the june mail itself the physical copy was still kept sent the gated will but they said they looked where they were supposed to be i'm not sure i understand why there is a problem with that if these particular documents are missing that is as i understood it this material was not classified in the technical sense it was covert because it was all illicit and j edgar hoover hid it somewhere in effect in a secret file room or something of the kind but then when that all came to light the material was then dealt with in a more appropriate way so now it's been indexed and they know where it is theoretically and they went and looked there and these particular documents were missing and what am i missing in interpret index they would know how to do the additional search which they did where it should have been physically located and whatever is in an index you look in the index i guess and i don't know in the index tells you where it's supposed to be then look search that looks for the june mail where it's supposed to be is somehow inadequate i understand how in one nine hundred seventy four it wasn't where it was supposed to be because it was hidden but that changed i'm not sure changes i read in the two thousand and twelve wired nic case that he still talks about the documents actually being physically segregated in a separate well wherever they are kept that that's where that is now where they're supposed to be i mean if you are right and if you're interpret ing this correctly will hear something from the government about this it would be an extraordinary really disingenuous thing for the government demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt they've conducted a reasonable search i would submit that one peach one sixty four mr hardy's space stations that are run specified and just say we looked it wasn't there in any year later we and that i would submit your honour's is not meeting the government's burden and in fact there is a case to be steinberg the department of justice we cited that is cells that point that there is recent and maybe not so recent authority saying that grand jury secrecy can sometimes be overcome when information is of historical importance but is no longer an only historical significance of this point in terms of active government interest but all of those cases occur in the context of someone going to the district court that has charge of that grand jury and seeking release of the grand jury minutes it seems to me that the f b i has no authority to release grand jury material under six that is secret under sixty because the f b i unilaterally determines that doesn't matter anymore the f b i is still under the obligation of grand jury secrecy and so it would seem to me and again explain to me why i would have this wrong that the they've made adequate for your response if you want to go to wherever this grand jury was held and seek release  released in two thousand and live in the district columbia the richard nixon grand jury testimony was released pursuit of a request in the the final point i'd like to make is with respect to  and that you know i'm not sure that this court then says no f b i human mistake you should have given that out because only of historical information if you don't think you have to double check i thought that those were made to the f b i because they came up through four  four year process even come up through that route but the court that was adjudicated the question was the court that also had a great jury for it and presumably and you know had some had some direct connection with the grand jury i think anderson it's your honor you'd be saying is that this should be brought in the southern district of south dakota or the western district of south dakota because that's where the grand jury was i'm just asking  asking a question suggesting a possibility here of the way these cases a way of distinguishing the case that you brought in and i understand that and then the final point on the grand jury is the the case where craig case that this court reaffirmed the special circumstances was a candle for his i understand they asked for the records to be unsealed but it was a from working on his daughter who wanted have please the court my name is mary roach i'm an assistant united states attorney in the western district of new york i represent the united states in this action the district court properly determined that the department of justice performed a reasonable and adequate search  and it also correctly determined that the exemptions were properly applied in this case frankly most of the argument that i was going to make this morning was covered by judge lynch in his questioning that it was integrated into the yes that's my understanding my understanding is that after nine hundred seventy eight all of the information that was contained in that june mail repository was then indexed into the general indices think i believe that is the case your honor neither the hearty declaration nor the case law has it leased to me made it a cleared the indication as to the exact location but what is mail i believe it is your honor and and and that is why it was certain it was identified here and in addition the manual search was undertaken on two occasions to try to find it so clearly there is a location whether it is segregated from the rest of the materials or whether it is combined with everything it was still in a location where it should have been able to have been found the other thing i would point out is that neither the has nor the case regarding the nixing grand jury materials  this court should not overturn the district court's determination that the foyer search was properly conducted and that the exemptions were properly applied with respect to the grand jury material as judge lynch pointed out the f b i had really no alternative according to sixty of the federal rules of criminal procedure that is a statute of exemption under exemption three and everybody concedes that the material at the f b i located was the grand jury material that alone was sufficient to allow the application of exemption three if there now are no other questions i would simply ask that the court would affirm the determination of the district court thank you public and we put an affidavit from mr paul the main indicating how much of the information concerning mr robinson's death is already in the public domain as well as the new york times article which discusses it in depth whether these informants testify to trial do you think it would be quite different if somebody is sitting in a court room and testifies and is examined or cross examined as to whether he's thousand and four and so i would submit your honor that it made to use the word disingenuous but i in my hate used i would hate to use the word disingenuous of a response to any response the government made in this court to a brief that does not cite the appendix pages that you're now referring to and that does it makes no reference to the fact which seems to me a highly significant fact if it is one that the witnesses testified in open court where your brief is saying the new york times some guy from the new york times you know the fake news tells us that he found out that these people are informants that struck me as well that's not an official acknowledgment end of story now it seems to me you're making quite different and possibly very potent argument that was not made in the brief you have to read the briefs or my last point and that would be i believe that oral argument can experience the briefs and that the mere fact that we didn't cite those pages in the the other exemptions with respect to remaining information but we want to at least get to the second step which is have them knowledge they were informants known go through the dark rooms that relate to them and let us know