as of october to me november second two thousand and two days before he is invited to a meeting with the mayor in the village manager along with the president of the union he was the secretary to talk about the villages trying to meet their economic shortfall for the following weir and they were thinking about  information on to the the trustees in the community so he gives a letter or a proposal to all of the groups saying what you can  do to avoid cutting back on the officers on the street who are giving you the security which you have wanted and you have indicated in the newspaper you were worried about losing what you instead is take the way all the on minor squad cars that command staff are allowed to take home they were allowed to use for their own own personal use and which they all still get through to be gassed up in the village and maintained by the village that was a very problematic proposal to that and the third opportunity he said was these former command officers we have full turn jobs doing it jobs here in the village police department we officers can do that the third proposal your honor about read relieving the officers who already had a pension and were not taking a second that was not followed but what was f making too much money according to their contract so they cut the command staffs salary by giving them five gay furloughs so mr mcgrail as investigate a traffic stop which i have given you the video and i suggest to you if you have a moment to watch it you will see an officer who handles himself very well would a citizen in the community at the three o'clock hour and the streets of the community the man who we stops both officer bush the the rathe decision makers had knowledge of the protected conduct at that with a protected speech at the november second meeting i looked in your brief for citations evidence on that point and it looks like the strongest point you had was mr mom borgs deposition where he says i don't remember yes there anything else there is young moberg testified at the a or i know that all the commands they have were not happy about the fact that mcgrail was making the foia request for their salaries and for their e mails because he thought that oversight but that doesn't stop the the need for at least the right to believe forward and say i as a good police officer on working out for my union membership and following the invitation of the mayor tell them how they can save money and now what my career is real that's all i'm asking judge i see the lights and i want to say whatever i possibly can the answer before your on hours this morning to survive summary judgment on this first amendment retaliation claim the appellant has the obligation to bring forth it miscible eviden that supports each of his claims and the district court here granted some reach out to meant to the applebee's because the district court found that the did not bring forth and did not meet his obligation to provide it miscible evidence showing that the apple e s knew about mcgreal zz protected speech prior to a new she aiding disciplinary proceedings and it is because there is a lack of evidence with regard to knowledge that the plaintiff is not able to meet the requirement of bringing forth evidence on the third element of a first amendment pre television klein the call sation or motivation element now we've heard a little bit about the evidence that the appellant muster or tried to muster in the protected speech but there's a problem here your honor if you go into mccarthy step position transcript what you find is that mccarthy testify yes he did call the various members of the board of trustees but he did that after hearing mcgreal step position testimony in this matter in other words he heard in the grill's deposition testimony in twenty fourteen and then cold of members of the board of trustees in twenty fourteen to find out well what happened in that november second two thousand and nine meeting number example of the so called evidence that is presented by the appellant here we drill down on it a bit he indicate that there is this novem that this command staff meeting that was a regular part of the operations of the oregon park police department and there was a november two thousand and nine command staff meeting they're for the meeting must have concern mcgreal those november second speech to the board of trustees but that is nothing more than conjecture there's nothing that mcgreal provides that provides evidence as to what the apple e's may have been thinking or what they may have been real indicates in his first brief to this court that there are many documents that prove that the apple e s must have had knowledge of the november  note that memo presenting to support the claim that the athlete had to know about the grill speech that memo was dated two weeks before the district court's point that there's not much if anything by way of direct or even circumstantial evidence that the decision makers knew about the protected speech to the point of his claiming here just as a matter of real life though it does seem likely that the police and it does seem likely that a police chief would hear about that kind of thing very very quickly your honor there is nothing presented in the record i know or i can put forth it miscible evidence to show precisely that point at this given the state of the record that mcgreal was provided it's all conjecture speculation for some of those going suggestions adopted you know or does it matter your honor it is my understanding that the the take home the take car proposal was adopted i think it is the case they were furloughed days that were taken but i do want to point something out in that regard if i could  the suggestion here seems to be that these were mcgreal proposals and you know the village acted on what he proposed but if you  at one point that these proposals were jointly created they arose out of meetings between the village and the various unions you know that represent  employees in the village so you know if you're looking at this matter there were a bunch of people a number of union members who were involved in these proposals but there's no is a significant amount of attention paid to suspicious timing and mr rose alluded to that in his remarks i would just call the the court's attention to the kidwell case which to me is actually very much almost on all fours with the situation we have here where  first amendment tally ation case publicly criticized his police department in union meetings and then that sometime later he was the subject of retaliatory discipline but what the court drill down on in in kidwell is there were a number of intervening of vents that occurred and the protected speech then you don't have the suspicious timing you know argument to try to bolster the motive motive or causation almight of the first amendment retaliation claim it seems to me that if we look at the record that has been put before your honor's by appellant in this case again and again and again you want to what appears to be evidence and it ends up being all what amounts to conjecture or speculation eve fine citing to the allegations of the complaint as support for either that there was knowledge or that there was pretext and i would just submit if you look at the evidence put forth with regard to pretext and it appears that the main argument is a similarly situated or comparable kind of analysis judge lefkow focused in on that in her district court ruling granting summary judgment and determined that an unsigned affidavit and a spreadsheet of that supposedly show who you know these comparables that was not admissible evidence and in fact there has been no attempt in the briefing that you received  judge lefkow noted in her memory and some order an opinion that she could have granted summary judgment to the apple e s due to the fact that his reply to this court began its by apologizing for not providing an appropriate jurisdictional statement this occurs again and again and i don't believe that this kind of evidence in this kind of presentation should be the basis for reversing the district court's ruling printing  on both the first amendment retaliation clane as well as the id claim which by the way if you note the argument that's presented to your honor's regarding the i mcchrystal actually it met that level of to stress that he suffering is of a garden variety that is hardly sufficient to make out an intentional infliction of emotional community but you're rather asked about d m other problems your honor please he had no problems with this department the else is a traffic stop i mean the  the l some stop five different communities are following are chasing this car through his town in them on the midnight shift at three o'clock in the morning because the two guys in the car had just been involved in the shooting they believe to one of the men in the cards he shot in the as they throw their gun out somewhere in the forest preserve as they go through this community i join mcgrail follows that the pursues them high speed chase parallel to make sure that the car is still in the view of these other officers and he stops at the end of this community what more could we ask of a midnight officer and then on the other one that they in the forest preside there are one there is three or four men running all around the forest preserves they're all trying to get them so they say you're to go back to your folks all right he takes too long to go back to his officer got disciplined at all for the forest preserve pursued the other officer on the dock in the traffic stop that i gave you the video for he says i smell the alcohol too i told