a police officer it was about how he was being treated as a citizen and when he did that they retaliated against him resulting in it's hard position resulting in an actual goal you know clause in stead of being a matter of public concern really what we should be thinking about in the way that we should be thinking about these cases is identified or the end analysis that we've identified is really about whether the complaint the letter that whatever it is relates to the judge as opposed to relates to a matter of public concern suggesting is that i was not the facts of this case i'm trying to distinguish the wider cases more than suggest that the court should be passing some new law i think more more more correctly is to state be the speech motivated whatever adverse action was undertaken by the employer but the question that we just flew was asking was isn't this how is this a matter when i view this letter it does not appear to be a matter of public concern and what you're saying is actually so long as it doesn't relate to his job if it's within our jurisprudence relating to st memorization and i have difficulty seeing that a matter of public concern so the union endorsement piece was not necessarily speech on a matter of public concern some of his other personal grievances were not and then the circuit looked at a few letters that might and that's really what's missing private citizen on a matter of concern i'm really not in it he talks about so many problems he talks about his neighbor making complaints against him he's talking  skate is abusing his power which is a singular conclusionary state so i think with respect to this matter there's nothing in there that speech on a platter although it's important to the plate that one of the which we tried to argue in the acquis case was that although it was important to at the time officer lynch it wasn't of interest to the entire community and i know that the district court disagreed with us on that certainly not speech on a matter of concern from our perspective but even even if it were i'd like to take up the time line challenge that my colleague rates the timeline shows that the letter was written so leaving aside whether this is a matter of speech on a matter of public concern we look at the causation standard for retaliation and i believe that my colleague has misinterpreted the case law there of course you need to that the plaintiff has to establish yes it was a substantial motivating factor and also the but for factor because as the supreme and healthy we cannot put somebody who engaged in this st amendment activity even if it's protected in a better situation then they would have been had they not that's your honour's may recall from our healthy way to public school teacher who had to grievances what it was about the dress code policy and he was also reprimanded for obscene gestures to students and the u s supreme court said ok perhaps his comments about the dress code are protected but those comments are not the but for cause of him being let go because he engaged upstream behavior to students we can't have people who would gauge in obscene behavior to students and be insulated from discipline because they gauge to protect activity and that are you are are you relying on the results of the arbitration well both in its sense and i do think the results of the arbitration or i would rely heavily on the yes because we've got not only a finding by the arbitration panel and i do want to brief your honor i think we said it was unanimous and i just want to quote i'm not sure that the labor representatives voted in favor of this but in any event it was a i think when it was it was confirmed by the per se because of the alexander gardner case but what it is is a very persuasive in finding that then the side who wishes to disregard the arbitration finding has to come forward with new evidence to show that they could have could have discovered earlier show bias or corruption those issues are great it's a very very strong ground so again taking that body of law and then supplementing it with the most healthy line what we have is a situation in which we have an officer who didn't just lie in the night but he lied to the federal that's the fight the felon he lied to the arbitration panel they found that they found there was no i'm going to get in the factual bit they found that there was no silent auction that there was  where i come from those are probably worth a lot more but that's what started mister escape for this journey was to find out how that happened and mister masel he said well there was this auction that i saw in the newspaper so the record evidence is that there's no such there's a reference to an e mail in which john mayer says these are sort of the parameters that i'd like you to look at in the yeah but there's no way over ten thousand dollars the rehab back as we do in the title seven body was and that's a burden that is plated cannot meet again because of our causation element it cannot prove that somebody in rocky hill response and said because of that we are going to let him go your honor so i thank you for your time i believe that the record evidence of the briefings are clear that there is no genuine material facts here any issues that were