morning ladies and gentlemen we are conducting this world argument phone and sometimes that creates some difficulty and then who is talking who wants to ask the question containing a judgment or order under review and i don't find the judgment in  learned that it poses some problems that would be a good idea because it is the least confusing whether it's a final judgment or final judgment is open for d please apologize i'm sorry i don't it's going to take me a minute to find the judgement perhaps you shouldn't take extra time the problem is beside fact that this document is not with instructions to the agency to consider arguments on the question whether there is reason to believe that haarp nichols opinion is tainted by cross it could be well i think you could fill in a long list could be but the judgement doesn't say which it is well i believe my understanding of the what the district court did hear was told that the social security administration had not but what does it mean hasn't provided sufficient process does it mean that the agency must consider dr hufnagel japan does it mean that the two statutes are declared unconstitutional does mean that reconsideration is impossible or invalid judges we need to know what's at stake here well i believe in a bit what the district court did not say that the process that had been provided was insufficient and the social security administration needed to provide an opportunity for mr jackson to contest adversarial  we're trying to interpret a judgment i don't even know what it means to say that more process is required that has to be concrete it's obvious that you're not thinking about this  did anybody ask the court to clarify and enter a proper judgment containing the relief i don't believe so but the district court did say that it was reversing the that's it and that's a common judgment in social security cases to reverse what happened below and remain in the form of something for the social security ministration to do it again so i and this judgment is hopelessly ambiguous if your it may be that the reason you omitted the judgment is that you think drugs require things and opinions well they don't they problem is that the judgment is hopelessly fish and it is not something that wraps up the case i have no idea what most of it means to say motion x is granted in part and denied in part do you know what such a thing  more of a judgment doesn't to among them the standard way to fix problems one is to ask the district court judgment only resolving relief and providing the remedy don't you think that would be a good idea here well i certainly if the court believes that it is appropriate i mean that's something that could be done but i administration was required to provide additional process an opportunity to test the basis for the inspector general determination and it sent the case back the thing open to the agency in the st place exactly how to structure its procedures so i think in this case it's similar in that way in that it opens the agency how to here i tend to agree we've got a serious jurisdictional problem we have extensive briefing on the merits the jurisdictional problem may be unfixable let's assume for the moment reason to believe the property in the hands of a private individual mounted the proceeds of drug dealing the property will be forfeit forfeited without any opportunity for to be for that owner to dispute determination that couldn't be challenged there would be the basis for the st that you're in other words the family would be forfeited i don't really see the difference here because the critical factual finding in problem i think there would be a dick off the problem there is there a problem a problem that could not be avoided by matthews versus eldridge balancing and cost benefit analysis  forfeited on the based on the fact that the found here the disability determination is not based on anything that the inspector general found out and the consequence of the inspector general asking us to just ignore reality you were having with judge hamilton but i'm in the courtroom in watching the time and you're over halfway into your rebuttal judge easterbrook may choose to afford you additional time given the various questions that we had at the outset but i to recite what's already in your brief i have a question about what you think is required in an ordinary social security case for forget about redetermination suppose there is a dispute about the admissibility of a physician's report how is that resolved would it be proper for example for the social security administration to well i think it would depend on the social security administration basis it would based on a statute that requires the exclusion of evidence one certain conditions w is license has not been suspended the r j says i refuse to listen to you i'm only going to listen to the commissioners for years would that be proper that's a matter of administrative  think most commonly that would be tepid would be tempted but i'm not sure of any administrative principle of administrative law and i don't think the pla for an agency to refuse to listen to the client on the question whether the positions licenses been suspended just refuse to listen to him at all i'm just not sure any judge easterbrook the time where we're a few minutes into the rebuttal time at this point answers to my questions about what the agency is supposed to do is it supposed to ward benefits it's supposed to hold a brand new hearing is that supposed to offer him an opportunity to a cross appellant have the same interest as the government one would suppose in having a judgment complying with the only rule fifty eight with the decisions of this  it saying judgments must be self contained and must provide the relief to which the prevailing party is and there is also will fifty eight dollars b to which says that judgments must be reviewed by the judge and the proof there's no evidence that this document was anything other than something ripped off by a deputy clerk and never reviewed by a  litigation it doesn't really help to say the a p a applies for the problem if you're trying to resolve an issue about the miss ability of evidence either before a court or before an agency to flip the coin over and ask you what do you think the scope is of your procedural due process right to get into the  investigation you know to act ask questions about you know the basis upon which the inspector general reached a conclusion to view materials d jay called for testimony from a vocational expert and then refused to the claimants attorney's request to question that same expert we're talking about a private interest but even the commissioner has conceded fanjul we're talking about a situation in which we know there's a real likelihood of erroneous determination and we know that because if for example if you exactly why i asked that question because i'm curious what mr polman says that's what i at least for my part i want to ask him to address his limited rebuttal time but i just don't see it's a complete disaster take but i don't know why the l j wouldn't have broad discretion to prevent a fishing expedition doesn't sound like you want to go on line and to demand that the claimant make an evidentiary based showing if he's able to as to why the inspector general's determination is in error as applied to him it sounds like you agree with that said you know looking it tended specifically to the standards that apply which there was probable cause which is roughly equivalent to a reason took a leap year and the court said basically didn't think that this procedure would be of reason to believe benefits were terminated basis based on the overall case record and whether it established disability and i'd like to point out that when jennings spoke about kind of evidence  available mr jackson had a considerable amount of evidence were guarding his medical condition at the time it included all of the records that they had developed during the location and that was done in this case and as in all cases so i think just because there is no reason to believe that ultimately the goal here is to get the an evidence that was judgment providing the relief to which the prevailing party is one that has been done the party should provide this court with a revised judgment or with statements about how they believe those changes affect the pending proceedings in this court ok let's see if we can get this thank you very much all right