do better better the judge heard all the evidence is that right yes you know the judge said i've heard all the evidence and that would not support a jury verdict in your client's favor you heard all we did hear it it was certainly that you're on about when you discuss the argument all the time if they don't say that lasted eleven days your client was represented by counsel counsel that the participate in direct examination cross examination it was rather astonishingly loaded with process it seems that your only claim is that well they were biased against him but i can't find anywhere where you carry your burden of demonstrating with evidence that they were biased against him the the adjudicator well your honor there was certainly very long  here and a very long transcript as a matter of fact defense counsel started their opening statement thanking the transcript in front of the jury and showing them that you don't get due process just because you had a long hearing and you don't get due process just because you had an attorney he could prepare his defense while he was there was a statement of charges and have to do with six sexual harassment charges six different women the problem was that even though those were the charges  which a jury could decide that that wasn't the reason for the terminations that wasn't the reason that the board decided to uphold the superintendent's  with the six claims of sexual harassment they have to do with other things your honor so if a lot of her decision depended on what she heard in the close sessions then she wasn't deciding based on the six charges of sexual harassment  how many people for a long so you point through one person saying a lot of a lot of my decision is based on the stuff in a closed hearing that's true but she's also the and then they came together at the final day and just opposed it however if you look at the drama that would that be a defective thing the jurors all get out there and say we've heard all the evidence le if they did it secretly the question is why did they have to decide secretly that's certainly evidence that they were not doing it properly and your honor we're not arguing that each of these things individually  and personally spoken to this woman and so i think it would have to recuse himself that it heard directly from her something about what mr lopez done the interesting thing about it is the record also shows that he has spoken  even in the hearing what the story was so that he could deal with it so they certainly heard it and it was supposedly about sexual harassment also the fact that this particular school board had the year previously fired a superintendent it's kind of confusing this place i know the district court judge was confused because her name is been written complaints of sexual harassment a year before that everybody knew about that just a lot of us could then deal with the hearing this was totally off the wall i think that those are the basic reasons because it was only the board who decided to terminate him and they have this long hearing and heard all of this evidence then anyone else is causal connection to the to t serious problem with sharon first of all the district court judge should have followed ninth circuit precedent that cited in the opening very not taylor but even so taylor is easily distinguish particular case what happened is is that a report of be made to a school principal it was inappropriate physical contact actually by one of her one of  the school employees and that she had reported this and then there have been an independent investigation and an independent hearing and the board decided to terminate this person recognize  are causally connected and they're also the people who wrote the public complaint that happened before this it's complaints of sexual harassment they actually use like this court to believe that the public complain one who went in the secret executive session on july twelfth with the board and assisted her attorney give the one sided story to the matter in which there was an eleven day two thousand page transcript hearing there was an appeal to the superior court the state and the terminations was upheld and then this suit in the federal court followed that i think the court is correct with due process as is the issue here it's the only issue and the district court commented that if anything the slow pres got more due process than he deserved i don't know whether deserves the right term but he got a lot of due process when this case was went to the district court you know a distinguished senior judge i handle this case for four years there are in the record decisive and determinative of all the issues that are before the court and frankly we can't make any really better legal arguments in a more concise fashion them in the court did in its order and we adopt that as an argument complain right whether you call it out nor pennington right or the complainants had a right to complain the processor's specifically williams and hannah have a duty to process that when the going got these complaints and a duty to tainted well there was there was a process but his lawyer was there and there was an appeal from up that process and as we sit here today we still have no evidence other than the suggestion as to what it was these people learned that somehow or another tainted them in this case is ten years old and we still don't we still don't have an answer to that question as a matter of fact when your honor asked what was the reason he got fired there isn't an answer today for that there was a theory that was put out at the beginning of trial and the theory that was put out the beginning of trial was that there was a conspiracy and that was the word they used then they have banned conspiracy during the trial but there was originally this was planned as a conspiracy to get rid of him so that somebody is brother could get the job as the principal of the school but that was that's long since been abandoned and when you ask that question today it's a question that doesn't have an answer now that i want to go right to this question that was raised right at the end because i think it's the it's the only question that has much importance as to the complainer in the processors hundred eighty three causation the requisite causal connection can be established by setting in motion the series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict a constitutional injury well all that's been argued here is that the complainer seen the processes processors some of them struck in motion a series of events that resulted in the termination and that they should have known it was going to result in the termination well that's so obvious we don't dispute it several of these people wanted mr lopez to get fired so clearly they set in motion a process which they hoped would result in these terminations but that's not prohibited by redmond what's prohibited is setting in motion a series of events which the actor should know or know is going to result in the deprivation of a constitutional right and the proof that any of these people had any idea that the school board was going to deprive this fellow of his constitutional rights which of course they didn't but the proof that that was going to happen is absolutely absent that's the biggest missing item in this case is any kind of showing that anybody knew this guy was going to be deprived of this constitutional  rights short of that the non decision makers can't be held liable for nine hundred eighty three injury the court is right in its one paragraph on causation and i don't think there's really anything i need to add to honour's my name is charles callahan and i represent the school district and and because the school board members are largely the policy makers i'll be speaking a little bit on their behalf as well as there are some hominids to use the phraseology interest i think if your position there's no property interest because there was a year to year contract is that correct there is a property interest but only and that because he was terminated mid year he was  signed a contract i believe in june of one before the ninety four ninety five school year when he was terminated in november of ninety four made it on the interest just for that half year the remainder of that contract only and then it would be your position that there was a full hearing complying with due process now on the liberty interest assuming that if there is a claim of stigmatization which i assume  how how is that how is due process provided for him on that claim the liberty interest there is no liberty interest and reputation a lot of the cases are clear  paul versus davis and this court's decision which is i believe san francisco city of san francisco you have to have stigmatizing charges plus a loss of a tangible interest  made motions objection arguments used his own evidence he called twenty witnesses on behalf of mr lopez mr lopez himself testified extensively all about these charges and whether or not they were sufficient sorry your honor i'm maybe and anything done in the hearing that kept him from fully refuting the charge that he was being stigmatized now so he was given a  why why aren't those issues that the judge should have heard more on rather than putting this case so early for the jury well the issue of bias starts in the language of the cases can only be overcome in the most extreme of cases and you can only overcome it by affirmative evidence of bias now in this prickle in her reply brief has  is not suggested well you can either show affirmative evidence of bias or as we've done here good enough stuff together to create the appearance of impropriety but that's not what the cases say the cases say you can do it by affirmative evidence of bias or by showing the appearance of impropriety because of the board members having a personal or peculiarity interest in the outcome that's when you can have rest on the appearance of impropriety here there is absolutely no suggestion that any of the board members have anything culinary or personal stake in the outcome of this terminations hearing and because of that the  appearance of impropriety is just it's an irrelevant analysis you need to prove produce affirmative evidence of bias and that wasn't done here to make just a couple of comments  staff about him having people staff in his office with the door shut by him taking features to his home about being counseled on the policies or procedures of the district all of that stuff goes to notice  corroboration credibility of the complainants and notice to mr lopez that his conduct may be inappropriate and that he shouldn't do that all of that was entirely relevant and important to the determination about the decision maker who refused him selfe on the ground that he received information outside the record and the allegation that he had polluted the other decision makers by passing it on to them i'll make a comment on that and then i want to pass to mr  had the case there's cases in arizona where that there's cases in the ninth circuit that i cited to unit in the briefs where a trial judge who presided over the capital murder trial who would also church and the fact is that all of the members were polled and far dired by the board of charity and they said we don't listen to what mr carpenter has to say one of them said i told him not to tell me anything to go talk to the attorney one of  please the court my name is brian hold a hand and i represent mr ortega the reason that i wanted to stand up here is to make sure that the court appreciates the position that my client is in there isn't any suggestion any claim against my limited to he did a bad investigation and he committed some kind of deprivation at the board hearing in which the charges were presented in his order judge broomfield found that there wasn't a deprivation committed by my client in either of those two events in our opening brief we pointed that out we pointed out that the plaintiff had not in his opening brief addressed that and there's no address it's not addressed in the reply brief as  stands there is a lower court finding that my client committed no deprivations and no briefing by the plaintiff why that's wrong now there is substantial briefing about how my client supposedly lost his qualified immunity my client's ex parte meeting with the board well i don't see deprivation discussed anywhere there but that doesn't have anything to do with the charges against my client my client was accused of committing some horrible in the investigation and the pre hearing presentation and considering the limited case against my client the lack of evidence and the lack of opening bri  it's a lot more than a verb the point is the board did not have to do anything to take any action on the july twelfth danielle take to tell them that they have to adopt the charges because he told them they have