clear from your brief was any of the speech in question made to the general public as opposed to his superiors in the workplace judge he told the general public that you matter of public health and safety for the citizens who live in galena but he's talking to his boss it's an internal discussion it's me yes your honor that's true but he's also talking to the other coworkers and good but he shouldn't be punished for following his job though you may be right about that but the fact is it's not a matter of public concern that he's announcing to the public he's doing his job internally which is admirable but not according to the we hold the when public employees make statements or so into their official duties the employees are not speaking as citizens for the first amendment purposes and the constitution doesn't and slate their communications  attorney was not in the supreme court so that's no first amendment claim what is your client done that supposed did not do that would cause a different oh my pray and learn of these because otherwise what we learn in the workplace will never be able to be used to correct the life all of us this man is a very brave me any any guy w they have a right to put that on before a jury so they know what he was trying to say you know in one of those all good ball up the way that it's a different issue you put before the jury you do need a constitutional basis for doing that i please the court counsel my name again is jennifer tiriel representing the defendants napoli's in the case the district court order should be affirmed because we're not dealing with protected speech here or city councils that speech me pursuant to official duties is not protected in order to garner first amendment protection you have to be as has been noted already this morning speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern and product part of the problem with the plaintiffs arguments is that we want to see wants to skip over that the first threshold inquiry of employee versus citizen speech and jump right to whether or not the speech is about issues of public concern and the wayne of interest and of course case law dictates that we can't make that jump with plaintiffs that the bottom line here is that the task it's articulated in our study is that speech is protected or i should say the test is whether the speech owes its existence to plaintiff's professional responsibilities and if it does that and then it's not protected and that inquiry in this case has to be answered in the affirmative we have a complaint that does not plausibly plead citizen speech and we pointed out several instances in our brief several paragraphs where it's clear that insistence upon code compliance to your supervisors and talking about it with your coworkers was something that point of considered to be part and parcel of his job he's paid and employed for that very purpose and it was within the scope of his duties to to raise these concerns and that that serious several paragraphs of the amended complaint i won't quote from now and they are quoted in our brief i did want to address something that counsel said about appealing to higher authorities and and i think some of the discussion might have been going to and i know that there is kiesel out there where you make the complaint outside of the chain of command if you will that sometimes first amendment protection can attach in those instances but that's actually not a plausible reading  thirty's here in the me are correct but i think counsel referenced the illinois capital development board there were some references to some state agencies that plaintiff consulted with but that wasn't part of if you read the complaint not part of any purpose to expose wrongdoing on the part of the lena what he alleges is i'm double checking my interpretation of the colds with these agencies not that there's nothing in the complaint saying that you know i'm complaining about that don't we know in my supervisors are enforcing codes that's not this case or said he was in a close case this isn't a close case yes and contrary to some of the statements in the br done so here as well and just briefly to address one other point that was made about the state court claims to be clear they were still in play point to me and decided not to pursue them but those were dismissed without prejudice to point to feeney able to pursue them in state court so those claims of course sir are not before the court this morning but again it that the conclusion that this this speech owes its existence to plaintiff's professional responsibilities it's inescapable on this particular on the set of pleadings not one but two sets of pleadings that we have here this is not an overly brought up and the key flaw of that council reference that's been cited in the briefs it's factually distinguishable it does nothing to prove that the speech here is citizen speech as opposed to employee speech pursuant to official duties  i briefly just wanted to address it didn't come up this morning obviously the mono claim falls with the fall of the first amendment retaliation claim and then the state law claims there were some sections and councils brief talking about the merits of those state law claims which i've already said they they obviously are before the court today but we did address that there's no abuse of discretion here on the part of the district court to have declined to exercise jurisdiction over those claims once the federal