situation here which the contract was admittedly reached on two occasions and the question is damages so why didn't you  last last salary what's the legal basis for that force see ability argument you didn't cite any argument is that looking at the case foreseeable event that happened because of the i think it's very confusing he says you promised not to tell other people about the reprimand you told other people about the reprimand i didn't get a couple of jobs as a result of that and the fact that i might have been terminated later by the v a doesn't mean i can't recover other job he would have had the other job he would have had the income from the other job he would have had the relocation compensation from the other job the fact that he didn't get the job and that he was fired later has nothing  you disagree that you're entitled to recover if he got in those other jobs he never would have been terminated from a job right that's correct because there are different tribunals but to the extent that they're interested in tribunals does that mean that the issues rather than the other the question of wrongful termination can really be would be decided or have been favorably decided or in this case the breach of contract is conceded so so that the other if it isn't a whistleblower then  are you there yes good morning may it please the court judge newman you said you had some questions if you'd like to just start with that that's fine with me well one of the things with which such a rise is significantly to the surface is  the separation of the issues and various us for the last question is that this is just sort of evolved with the proceedings of government responses and tribunals by the fact that he continues to seek those damages and multiple actions that may be true but what about this that i mean it seems pretty simple the government reached the contract he alleges and he may be able to prove or may not be able to think you can narrow it down to the missing dates the missing time transposing that to be specific dates surrounding the applications his rating and determination because in essence i'm not following what you're saying i don't like it i'll try to talk to them but let's deal with a simple hypothetical government reaches a contract to get a job that would otherwise be asking for damages and he says the fact that later i was terminated had nothing to do what's the matter with that there are two things in this case st the specific damages identified for one front which are the determination which happened close in time to these application process is there's nothing in the complaint to separate it whatever behavior may have happened to lead to the termination or whatever how determination came about bomb these applications which when all that is put into a complaint if i don't i don't i simply do not understand that are you he says let's say in january i applied for the i didn't get it because you read the contract in december the government fired what is the fact that the government fired him a year later with his right to damages for the breach early it's not intervening it's just an event that happened after the breach and after he lost the job because of the breach but that intervening that leave aside the phrase intervening that termin conclusion that the terminations may not have been or the the reason he didn't get these jobs wasn't because of anything the government did in regards to these settlement agreements but was because behavior that we have terminated wait wait wait wait this judge well i have a couple of questions one as to the failure to get the jobs it's disputed that the government breached and and said bad things  i said i had a couple of questions the other one is separately from his his claim of damages for not getting the job relocation one looks like to me like i'm an interesting argument on page sixty of the red brick you argue that his claim that he was a federal employee with a fully successful rating when he applied for the greenville position is insufficient  because the reg actually requires that quote relocating employees are only eligible if they are federal employees with a fully very simple and i and i i also think it's telling you that there's never been a request to amend that because i think that all it requires is much like providing plausible allegations support the elements of a claim if you're if you're claiming these two positions open with the allegation that mitchell even met all the requirements at the time of application and interview then the last sentence of each of those paragraphs says that at the time of application he had a a fully successful rating at the time of application and he stuck with that and this decision came down a bit this was dismissed once before when he was pro se but surely was secured pro bono counsel these aspects of the complain change and i mean the basically the response prove to the most to dismiss was we don't have to and there's no request to amend that well if the court things we do have to you know will amend the complaint so this is there's loss in salary i mean your honor frankly there is testimony and there are things in it's in the m s p case and we're operating within the confines of the complaint here and the exact status of what was done in the breach yes something was mentioned but in the way it was mentioned this is very specific it wasn't in a negative way it gets very factual and i don't want to go into that here but yes the wrong thing was said when expectation damages of the last the last salary the court found to be too speculative based on the allegations because the determination which occurred you put everything together again as alleged in the complaint is right on top of these allegations of not getting the other job and it becomes impossible based on the allegations of the complaint to extract whether or not these jobs were not given because of what was done or because he was terminated right around the same time for some reason is nothing in there in terms of timeline in terms of when this happened when he heard about the job there's nothing to fill out the details to on tangle all of the things that happened at the same time it's unusual it's unusual that i think you know that these basic allegations are just so you may not have heard me it seems to me that the document it issue is if nothing else is future expectations and the other is as far as your discussion regarding ok ok anything else that you need to tell us is the paddle have any more questions or has to park