very good you may proceed thank you good morning your honor is and may please the court looking to the totality of the circumstances disregard leaves no doubt that mr fitzpatrick was not just out to to ruin miss walker's professional career but he was actually out to ruin her life essentially he gamble on prosecuting her and when he lost that didn't stop him he his efforts to do this after the the acquittal what took place and in essence was that the paradigm that was set up you know to have miss walker only interpret in civil matters you know in onondaga county and criminal matters and civil matters in the other sixty one counties of the state of new york obviously reflect the fact that she was capable and she was able to do her job this was a motive you're insinuating exists your honor that's an excellent question that that is it would call for speculation on our part but what i can tell you in terms of what actually happened was that he relied on the testimony of a witness drugs and heat he after he was unsuccessful in relying on his testimony as part of a plea deal to indict my client and use that testimony at trial which motivation and of course does think that you know the level of proof it needs to be attained in the criminal proceedings different from what one would have in a civil proceeding that might warrant adjusting work assignments for example but i'm having a little difficulty understanding how at the end of the day your client has suffered a property deprivation of a constitutional convention where she's just limited in one county to work on civil cases that otherwise can work throughout the state of new york and the rest of the th judicial district and all kinds of cases where why is that a constitutional level deprivation well you are before i address that and i certainly will the judge judge condescension we found that in two opinions that the delay in our being able to be reinstated when she couldn't work at all and make a penny you know which was actually at a ten month period that such eleven is ending now  she was acquitted you know up until the time that she was finally d put back on the registry and in that ten month period the record is replete with examples of mr fitzpatrick and this mcgonagle is attempts with the th judicial district to two essential you know put in place this paradigm that you just referred to and that delayed the process and the this record for some reason and in granting the motion for summary judgment did not analyze the delay at all she they had you know there had been enough for the grand jury to indict her that level of proof might have been enough to warrant the inspector general assessment st of the evidence and  determine whether it was appropriate for her to work and also there was this appearance of impropriety or bias that might be perpetuated in my team's future criminal trials were she to continue to work on criminal matters  time after she was already acquitted not only acquitted but also reinstated she did not work at all you know from the point that we she was reinstated d in april of two thousand and fourteen for another six months which is half of her salary of about ninety five thousand i should say salary income of the previous year when she essentially was put out to pasture permanently during that time but she's independent contractor right who is qualified to work but that's what gives her and title meant to work but you're on that from trying to save her certification gives her the entitlement to work and she was unable to work as a result of the delay the courts focus in the translators and interpreters and you know other people are selected she doesn't have the same kind of title at this point he does to a certain level of work that she by virtue of her certification your honor she doesn't but let's second when i'm saying to you on if you look back at her history there was a lack of spanish interpreters in those courts you know in the barre chords that she worked in so there was no reason to believe at that point that that occurred during that ten month period after she was acquitted ok i meant so even even after the point that she was back on the list until the time she actually got on the list that she would not have worked in that period and that would be provable by just looking at income honor that that's an implication that you know is inherent i think the court can take judicial notice of that in other words like ok i will accept that your honor if i may she was ok i'm sorry your honor and if i think a lot of it has to do with the phone i apologize but well yes i appreciate that normal visual cues are not there so i make allowance but my concern here in addition to what carney has read is the fact that simply because she was on the registry doesn't mean she was entitled entitled now to the same amount of work on an equal basis with everybody else or no you're wrong excuse me please don't interrupt or in that in fact to any work whatsoever that's true your honor it is but that is not the history of what had been occurring for every other over twenty one years up until the point that mr fitzpatrick who admitted that her innocence or her acquittal had absolutely no effect on his right to go after guilty verdict means nothing to him he testified to this as did wrist mcgonagle of who said that that should have no impact at all under ability to work as an interpreter and the human rights law also prevents that someone from being discriminated against now in that period of time since she was put on the registry until she actually went back to work ok there are issues of fact as you know when i say go back to work i mean basically to resume  responsibility in any capacity ok that loss of the use of her certification do we believe and should be tried to a jury the machinations of these two d individuals clearly is a deprivation of our liberty interest to use her certification nothing was guaranteed your honor but what i'm saying too is it's if a jury looks back at her past history and the fact that she was held in high regard and all of the work that she did for twenty one years  analyzed it compared to what would practicality would would require in a situation like this in terms of what happened to her to not work at all the back the fact of what happened after she actually went back and was able to work in the sixty that cetera i'm not conceding that that doesn't impact and that's not a deprivation of her property interest but just to argue this to signal a situation where she was not able to use her her license at all prosecution but the inspector general had determined by a preponderance that your client had leaked information inappropriately derived from the grand jury would the district attorney's office arrested right after she was exonerated their efforts slowed down to get her back to work at least to get back on the list you have to have retained three minutes for a possible we'll he the facts involved in this case this court your firm the district court's decision both for the reasons set forth in the decision order of judge conn from march thirty one of two thousand and sixteen and because judge two army was entitled to both thirty eight at page nine she's now changed the position on appeal and is attempting to argue realizing the fundamental flaw and for the fatal nature that has to her argument that if she does not have a property she cannot have a due process violation and she cannot have a stigma plus case in the in the papers before the court they are they argued both case and the much case the mugs case after the original briefing this case and before we got before the court on oral argument was in fact reversed by the nd circuit and in a case that they had alleged previously was most parallel the district court was specifically reversed in the court found that there was no property interest and that a sufficient for due process and stigma plus purposes with regard to a teaching certificate and in that case in the much case the  circuit specifically found that even in the circumstance of the teaching certificate the united states supreme court in the nd circuit have not held that to be a property interests of fishing for constitutional purposes at this point and this case deals instead with a certification solely to be an interpreter on a per diem basis before the courts and the th judicial district my client is not william is in fact the administrative judge who was required to deal with an inspector general report the expected general or d did to him that there was a basis based upon her refusal to take part in an basis in other courts within the bits of this rule district which is six counties and in criminal courts in other districts and in civil courts amount of the county to try to take that right to be a  certified interpreter and turn that into a constitutionally protected right with all due respect is well beyond anything that is supported by the case laws let me ask you a question  was qualified for work gave her an entitlement not to be treated like any differently from any other interpreter on the list did you did your client have the right to treat her differently because of her the proceeding she had undergone yes i think she did judged to be direct i don't think there was a property interest in anna right for her to appear and  acquitted some time after that mr test though from the inspector general's office of the office court administration not my client began an investigation of her and suspended her during that period of time he then attempted to have an interview with her in the record will reflect that that interview was refused by her he then continued his inspector general's report and when he reached at the end when he was ready to issue the report there was finally  agreement on the part of the appellant to appear for that report and he nevertheless made made a recommendation that she be that that should be suspended that was subsequently changed by judge could colma  from the office the court of ministration not my client mr judge stormy and she was allowed to work so it was the administrative process involved d in the inspection the inspector general of the cause that the let me ask a technical question if i the judicial district that the sec wrecked that is correct however we requested the judge termes name be changed from the pleadings because he was soon individually and as official capacity as the district judge jennifer clark on behalf of michael kline the district executive of its traditional district and we also ask that this court affirm the district court's decision dismissing the complaint and declining  attempt to bring mr kline back into the case with the nd amended complaint after the close of discovery i just want to start with delay because that seems to be where the argument has has gone so conducted by o c a which is the new york state office accorded ministration my client is not affiliated with o c a no ca was not today as part of this case so they are separate entity that was conducting an internal investigation which claim to st declined to participate in and then eventually did participate in and the delay between her acquittal and her reinstatement to the registry is explained by that process being conducted by an administrative agency that is not party to this proceeding here additionally there were no allegations in either the original complaint or the proposed nd amended complaint that my client mr klein had any involvement whatsoever  some conclusory allegations of a conspiracy between all the defendants were guarding her the way in reinstatement to the registry and he in fact does not have any control over who is or is not on the registry so to the extent that  that and with regard to the minor restriction put on her ability to interpret when she did return that simply does not count as a as a functional revocation of her only in civil matters in the court what why isn't that why isn't that enough to create a stigma on her why is that a limitation that any reasonable reader with thankful you know there's a problem here and this is  st with that the idea that that could be a governmental action that would that would reach the level of the constitutionally cognizable deprivation that would be required under signal plus that simply insufficient deprivation of anything to account for that but even putting aside the plot element that that e mail simply isn't is no stigma the only thing it does is inform court personnel about the restriction the restriction is in fact in place that is true information it contains no false statement and it doesn't even contain innuendo which seems i guess to be the line of argument that plaintiff is the line on that somehow you  assume some kind of innuendo from there but there isn't and this court has said most recently in the much case and you know prior to that as well that innuendo innuendo is simply not enough to support a stigma briefing we did in the case is not in the work assignments it could be property interests is in her certification you know to be an interpreter so that this is something that we we never argued prior to this point and we're not saying that she had a property interest in our assignments now back to the issue of delay what occurred was that the she didn't she declined to have the interview on the advice of counsel not knowing no one told her what the ramifications of not being interviewed war so as a matter of fact sheet she really wasn't even told she was under investigation until that that attempt was even made and that was about three months after she already been acquitted that to have her you know interviewed so that was something that she was not informed about and that's essentially what occurred but what neither counsel have addressed is the fact is that even after she was put back you know on the registry ok i mean otherwise after she was found to be eligible to be back in reinstated you know in or around you know april that was when of two thousand and fourteen when the i g cleared her it still took two months you know for her to even be reinstated ok on to the registry and then because of this situation of could she do criminal working on a dog or county or not target in those matters she judge told me to even write a letter to her ok until august you know what to her attorney telling her what the parameters of what  work would be and she didn't work till september so we're talking about you know an acquittal that occurred back almost two years before that then we're talking about a six month period from when the i g clears are all the way until the time that she could work and no to heart really talking about under the stigma plus law you know or or analysis a liberty interest ok which it which is not the same thing as the property interest judge khan had already found she didn't have one because of this you know ability to work elsewhere and the reason that the case continued to this point and we were permitted to amend our complaint to add in delay as a major factor was because the court found that delay was an impact on her liberty interest because of the fact that she didn't work at all zero until she was reinstated d on to the registry she could not work at all and after she was reinstated on to the registry she still didn't work for another three months and sondra brian who is the the inference that could be drawn from that is that you don't have an actor here judge spatula who d is a low level you know individual this guy with all due respect to him as a high level authority and this was that once the i g clears that's that's the end of the ballgame ok and in her view once you're acquitted of the crime you know that you should be reinstated promptly there's really no reason for that for the lag and the late so there's an issue of the ok my explanation is this your honor mr fitzpatrick had a view of my client that is unlawful because she's supposed to not be stigmatized when she's exonerated syracuse or onondaga in what to all outward observers is an instance of jury nullification where there was overwhelming evidence of you know far more than enough evidence to satisfy the i g a preponderance of the evidence nothing bad can happen to the interpreter's employment situation at all it would just be unconstitutional is that right your honor that's this law in new york that is the l law if you are exonerated your record is sealed copies are destroyed that that's the position of the law and that's the position of the human rights law on the sex objective or section two hundred and ninety six i mean  that there is some limitation on their ability to go forward with their life and not be discriminated on that basis and as a matter of fact the statute calls it a nullity and the cases interpret ing the statue repeatedly refer criminal procedure law one hundred and sixty point five and then it's also referenced in new york executive the section two hundred and ninety six paragraph sixteen and it's also in the corrections law that's section seven  and that's when someone has been convicted and never to kill a case they still should be able to work unless it's related to the job they're trying to get for example you not going to drive a brinks truck if you are convicted of armed robbery so there  laws in place with respect to this but i'm also appealing to the court not to reward mr fitzpatrick for his activities in this regard because specifically because of the fact that this is not as i said new york d city the relationships between his office and the district and the office of the fifty additional district and this is found also to have occurred by judge kohn and his decisions that there were communications between the d a s office the th judicial released the indictment after she was acquitted to the i g s office without a court order and finally there was a judge on the court they wanted to use my client and i had a sort of a somewhat of a disagreement with judge tore me about that