hear you we would appreciate that i and i'd also tell you that we've all read the briefs we are very familiar with the facts in the record i so with the end in mind on behalf of me as well so how much time would you like and could be considered in the hague i think was just incorrect when he said i can't conceive that i shouldn't consider that based on the u s supreme court got beyond the level three in other words you can get to a level three as long as you don't have any other infraction for a year then you have the actual level not so she has she racked up have but if you have to before you can draw the negative inference you want us to drop you don't don't you he have to before you can take advantage of an evidentiary presumption that somebody destroyed the jakim and that that would hurt them do you he have to get a ruling from the court saying there was a paper copy or there was an electronic copy she was fired she meets that test  fifth on excuse me absence which according to the advocates policy results in discipline and still as i said before whether it was suring clifford or provided supervisor she still he and the infraction time because you had a favorable employment review ending two thousand the period ending two thousand and six we know how the errors against you that were before that day not that they weren't made but we won't yes and so miss clifford didn't make her didn't inducer to make the errors i just i'm i'm having a hard time seeing where mis maybe eat when somebody is hasn't done disciplinary record you have a coaching moment with them but you've got an employee who's got to do supply nearing record so i i don't see how they're comparable and the court looked at this record and said i'm looking at the e mail and i'm looking at other evidence and i don't think it was some on a whilst responsibility to retrieve e mails on the afternoon before she was fired i'm making mad as a determination of fact if that was material that would be reversed on summary judgment i don't i don't think it's any different to the commission of like a summary judgment just summary decision which the question for the court is are they are material visions of fact if they are material issues of fact that need to be was one new hired attorney who was responsible for reviewing all these cases is they have no record anywhere but i think the commission's lack of resources over the upwards of a thousand a year that are pending so that the case very significant and the staff they have the resources they have are not sufficient to address these things as quickly as they want and  they're always refining to try to address this they know that it is an issue that's all i can really say about why this might have taken taken the time it did factor in terminating wells she was fired based on her job performance for not retreating his voice mails her disciplinary history as well documented it play straight risk of being terminated for her next infraction not contest that she was responsible for checking them and now there's a reason for the terminations and that's not a race based decision and i think there is no way to infer there was some racial motivation based on those d that requires a hearing so it's it's all about the undisputed facts that entitle one of the parties to judgment as a matter of law also that the so a decision where i think it's the first case to really clarify what the standard of review is in summary decision cases it does have a confusing sentence in the same sentence it talks about manifest weight for  responsible for that and to the extent that there was confusion clifford believed that it was wells his responsibility raz apparently believed bad because her excuse was when she met with clifford ms well said or thought on the side because it's really not her perception that drives the entrance of discrimination there's nothing on the other side to say oh that was your job and you didn't do it how can we infer from their brains entered into that because we don't have anything to counter that she didn't really believe that there was no way for me  without cross examination is that what she did she by the way she did not say with respect to the the missing or that she said something i think the words were i don't recall anyone else being at sea the answer another you know you want us to draw an inference from the ask when you didn't really  that it's one thing to say that the de lay in resolving an issue a case is embarrassing it's another thing to say that the a l j was dishonest in his review of the record i don't think there's any