investigation yes you're i think that's what one thousand one hundred and eighty four p one contemplates but let me point out a very important thing that's not to say that any of these officials whether it's a judge or a local prosecutor or a police officer has obligation cooperating there is no matter which they had no involvement there a couple points i'd like to make about that so st of all again this that interpretation would impose no additional burdens on those officials because they have no obligation the list of care to judge the law portsmouth so there that's not something that you can challenge in the exercise of their discretion whether your say in the minority of cases that's going to be the case this is the reason why this decision below it was different was because the is essentially it's a it's a statutory provision that empowers judges and these officials to provide a particular admin a generally administrative remedy just like the provision and i guess to see davis for instance a lot of judges to provide funding really let me let me ask you i'm wrong about your saying that because i did not decline to perform your wedding ceremony on jurisdictional grounds rather than on the merits because i didn't think you were a good couple or whatever you  you know interpreted that as a legal matter just like we're going to have to probably address that question the judge took that and said i wasn't involved in the case so i don't think i thought so i don't have i don't think i can do it and the judge could ask that question three ways you could the judge could say i'm not going to do it just i'm not going to do it and you would know and i guess you would say that we don't have that that would not be appeal because you would know that the judge had decided that on a dearth of personal basis or just refusing to do it or the judge could say i don't have jurisdiction which is the other end of the spectrum and you're saying that is just because the judge did it for that reason and in a just to say something sort of in the middle like i don't i don't think the statute says i can do it but i guess you would say that was lack of jurisdiction  well it would depend on it would depend on what the judge says in the case and here the judge was quite quite clear throughout that the judge said that if you like subject matter jurisdiction on page thirteen you're thirteen the judge said the appropriate  tension need to know they should send me under your under your interpretation of this that they should send mass mailings out to every judge and law enforcement in the bush era and see if they can get one by under your interpretation well your honor i don't think that's likely to occur for a couple of reply that i actually would have i have a judge would have any idea that he's talking about some due process claim that's unrelated to his use so why i understand we need to read things generously or pro se petitioners but i don't think that extends to letting them race raise an argument and actually articulate what it is for the st time in their reply and support the most reconsideration so i'm not sure there is actually a due process that is independent of the of the  that this was not a situation where the a judge ruled in your client's favor on his request for on here and then he got his bond hearing and it was released and the government takes it up on a and the government gets the district judge's decision reversed on appeal i would think not situation you might have a concern that is based on the reversal of the government will go out and retain your client but in this case your client filed this petition he he lost in the district court and he ice released him for some reason that's apparently unrelated to this lawsuit and gave him a bond hearing for some reason that's  lawsuit and and so that it seems to me clearly moves that the request for honor your honor at take the point that the factual circumstances are different but i think that's ultimately a distinction that doesn't make a difference because what the question is is whether there's voluntary space station here and the government has a very heavy burden to show that move is there voluntary suspicion it would have to show that he has no continuing stake whatsoever and declaratory judgment that read it's meaning here to counsel i government was fighting getting a binary but this is that situation you're on or again the question would still be whether someone who was detained for the length of time that he was detained or to believe his twenty two months could be read its name without a bond hearing and that that's all that is required counsel counsel i don't know how he could have been raising the argument when he was she saying his argument when he was a taint best case scenario is that i you know i deserve due process i  subsequent bond hearing that could not have been his argument that he brought in is that the factual circumstance i agree with that but i do think that ultimately the legal claim is the same one which is under what circumstances someone that's been detained with their status proceedings and  over but i just thought of one other thing one other problem with with your miss argument which is my understanding of a case a couple of years ago called soraya versus sessions and what i learned in that case is that at least as of a couple years ago he says policy was if you release somebody on beyond and you want to read detain you can't just go out and reach a saint you have to show ice has to show that there a changed circumstances from the time that an immigration judge determined that the person was neither a flight risk nor again or to the community so unless the policy has changed in the last couple years i think actually your client would have the opportunity to challenge is retention now that an immigration judge just released well the government has not made that representation here so i guess i just encourage you to ask the government that question my understanding is that the government is is aggressively interpreted interpreting jenning's be rodriguez such that it could potentially restate i without a bond hearing but if they do if they disavow that authority and sure they claim that claim would be moot but again that is nothing that's a statue just to be clear is your argument that the statue clearly says d that as a statue is kind of confusing and seems to that's the reason i got my i have my reading a lot of i had to get my reading book out in order to compare these candidates and seems like they go in opposite directions  context there's only one reasonable constructions that's yours and if there's only eleven reasonable construction that means you think that means when it step one but that my question is duly do we get there because you've also argued that it's not appeal as you've heard that argument have to states actually does that clued us from construe it in opinion if we agree with you on that preclude us from construe the statute in the way that you want us to there's a tension whether that's mooted by the fact that he's been released on i'm sorry if it was his or the request for bond hearing the best mooted by the fact that he got when he got released as something that really interests yes y i mean i suppose you could characterize that as looking into whether or not the warrant has enough in order to provide the warrant that and that's not actually a crazy thing i don't think because those would be the types of judges that you would say this person was  the information that that form the basis for the warrant so have make sense asked the judge about i guess i just don't think that that's a natural way of describing what a judge does even in that context i think we think of judges as adjudicated cases not investigating by that point we're so far a grand jury is doing the investigating but the judge but the judge has some supervisory role correct but the statute simply says that it limiting clauses investigating criminal activity so i think that  it's then it's unreviewable after discretion so if you didn't if you don't answer at all if you're a judge i guess one of these and i guess it could be up stripe in each of us it's one of these and just don't answer at all that would not be reviewable but if you ask her and say i don't to thank you counsel any other questions to quote thank you both for your argument and this case to be submitted