frustrated when for exemptions are used to block this and access to records pertaining to illegal improper and authorized governmental conduct that there was illegal conduct by the government in this matter as historically lack splaying you know incident that's being brought to light and especially when it's a personal issue that's being aired as opposed to kind of the objective look into purported misconduct certainly  and still in that case they found that when there were doubts about the reliability of this investigators report that the public had a right to his information even though he had private interests that they looked interest in knowing that an investigation ranking misconduct by high ranking governmental officials certainly when there is misconduct by high ranking governmental officials that that creates a very very strong public and i just mentioned that because that was one of the cases you're asking us to use as a model and i and again when you get to talking about rank in that situation what the courts have looked at is not just what the person's total and rank was but whether how directly responsible they were for the misconduct in here had it been a court very strong very strong privacy rights or goes cases where it was a low level person who was caught up in somebody else's misconduct there was someone else's misconduct and they were hard up in it and they did in terms of those articles those articles were not in front of the chief judge gonzales in district court but the things that centrally what mr mclean's attacks on federal banks and things like that for disclosure of his records we believe is really not relevant  to the issue those are statements that he made but one thing there's some comments in one of those articles that where mr mclean makes allegations that he was you know forced out of the navy because of his  in church of scientology this court has held that the factual findings should only be distorted if if they are clearly erroneous and then the underlying exemption would be considered normal in this particular case and we would interest in terms of shedding light to these incidents of misconduct they make a showing there briefing even even an argument upon states how the military commanders tacitly approved this practice of issuing illegal subpoenas w were override the privacy interest in the professional responsibility record roger or the court to consider that they were talking about maybe six or seven examples of where this has happened and that  discretion to dismiss court martials a convening authority does and that is usually a flag officer meaning i one star of both or some other high ranking officer specifically designated by the secretary by the secretary of defense to be able to be very few i would i would say that perhaps it's maybe more than then than very few i think that with many of these cases one would never hear about them because they're usually with n s f cases where guilt is thousand very late and that's why there was a delay in filing his cases before the court of federal claims and all in that court said based on other issues we believe that you know this before so yes there is perhaps it disagreement on fact present more than speculation and fishing expeditions to try to show that there was this this public interest has not shown that there's just a conspiracy by the departments involved to to keep to keep records from him what ha the personal privacy privilege as you know to the extent that it's protects the individual's names and all that so really what you have left if anything in those deal with the e mails is a couple of catch phrases here and there one of the ones at that point also b course was we can confidentially state to congress that these subpoenas were issued improperly well i think that's taken out of context i think in the context because you blacked out the rest of the stuff they can have it both ways you can block it out and then