page thirteen fourteen that's true that's true your honor but the whole case is based on the factual issues of excessive use of force because that was the reason those were the reasons given by  county in terminating the plaintiff so the underlying facts in this case are based on those three facts so did the point of use excessive force in this case is an issue that the plaintiff perspectively semester the court should ideas was the hearing of the procedure that was given to the point of and deciding whether we should be terminated or not was there hearing adequate and it's the plainest position that it wasn't because the command review board that that was in the procedure for terminations ignored the court death there's a substantial issue of fact in this case when you have the sheriff who is the person that's deciding whether the court the ninth circuit laid out in detail some of the items that the court should look forward to or look to in deciding whether due process has been granted or not if you look at the procedure that was given to mr cross or officer cross before he was terminated there were there was no sworn testimony and none of the basis for the reason that the sheriff gave third item that the ninth circuit listed was sworn testimony in this particular case there was no sworn testimony anywhere given by any of the air taken by the sheriff in deciding  that looked at all the facts ignored the facts of this case especially so when i witness as to the incident that is the underlying basis of the of the of the reason why the sheriff gave for terminating mr cross  on the basis that the sheriff the sheriff's office leaked to the press all sorts of false information to the point where he has not been able to find any employment or very little  that since mr krause was a stray fifteen year employee with their county that he could only be fired for just cause and the facts that i initially brought up to the court show that he was not that he was fired not for just cause he was not the facts the sheriff gave firing him were not just cause reasons as a matter of fact he was specifically fired for doing his job the final item i like to bring up to the court is even asked if the court found that there was a basis for disciplining the share of disciplining after cross the sheriff's own based sanction functions show that even if the sheriff was right in saying that face sanctions is twenty days are special without pay thank you very much for hearing the liberty interest whether or not he was terminated for just pas whether or not he did in fact lie regarding his use of force or whether or not he was truthful in other aspects of the investigation are not matters on appeal before the court today are not addressed in the opening brief and they were not sealed so when we look at the issue of due process we look at the loudermilk case which basically puts forward the standards for which we determine whether or not due process was provided in doing so we looked at was plaintiff provided notice of the charges against him was he provided the evidence that supported the charges and did he have an opportunity to respond i'm not going to go over the entire process with the court today because it is put out very extensively in our brief both orally and in writing both personally and by his union representatives and finally after his determination he was given yet another opportunity to meet personally with the sheriff along with his union representatives and again give any rebutting evidence any documentation or any information which would need to share in his decision after reviewing all of that evidence the sheriff did decide that plaintiff's should be terminated based on his conduct there is no authority cited nor can i find any one circuit or other binding authority i would say that before a government employer terminates an employee they must give the employee a full evidentiary hearing or an ability to cross examine witness would apply which is opportunity to respond notice of the charges and the evidence that is against him so when in cases where and if planet had brought a case before the employment relations board or some other  administratively agency for which the game would apply then you would have an administrative adjudication in which a full hearing would be provided but what we're talking about here is a terminations from a public employer unless the court has any further questions i would just add by closing that it's not the court's decision today whether or not the county made a good decision and the right decision or even the correct decision in deciding to terminate plaintiff's employment rather the question for the court is whether or not