employee of the mayor's office for the city romulus for a number of years from just a few months away from vesting in a pension an investigation was sued by the michigan state police to investigate some misgivings going on within the mayor's office my client was let go because she refused to talk too much was what mr the funded lambert reported to him mrs williams and obviously that would be admissible under ada one it's not hearsay statements by a defendant is not hearsay trial court ruled that that in fact was hearsay and not admissible mr lambert was complaining that my client had talked to the mayor pro tem and informed him all the illegal activities going in the mayor's office such as cash payments illegal campaign contribution getting confused  mayor indicated to my client that she's let him go because of the fact that there was a millets in the millage didn't go through these statements were made prior to the military even being voted upon that he was going to get rid of her because she talked too much and it's clearly not he she informed him about the campaign finance reports in essence there was fifteen thousand seven hundred dollars of cash that was not a counted for the mayor's campaign finance report the mayor was taking money from individuals mr basi reported that he was to pay the mayor one hundred twenty five thousand dollars for the his getting the permission to open up his knee business and she reported this to someone she reported all this to the mayor pro tem who it would in fact take action on it and in fact he went to the mayor and reported everything and it was used as a basis of hope for my client her continued employment and this happened when just perjured discharge but you tell me a date it was two thousand and ten i don't know scheme in practice and most of the department people go there would go campaigning go door to door and individuals who refuse to put up a sign within days their homes will be raided and it was testified by denver police officers that if they didn't did not allow any of this testimony command claiming it was all hearsay and so that's why i indicate the problem as mr bobbsey indicated that at least two other occasions he received thirty five hundred dollars cash payment and was taken directly to the mayor  in addition that he may or instructed mr basi who said that during his investigation that he has to pay the mayor two thousand dollars a month but what does this have to do with it's why she was like she was let go because of her protected free speech and that's why she was terminated because she was reporting the illegal activity and she was told if she didn't live the state police investigation she would be let go or terminated she was there a county wide layoff not a county a city wide layoff there were some layoffs but her job was protected under the charter and she was informed that by both trap it as well as the city finance administrator and the human resource division her position was protected by charter she was told that reporter that she would not be let go because the charter and in fact mayor lamb would be admitted during his decision presumptive the mayor made the decision to let it go he informed mrs williams that he was let go because she talked too much but at the time the time that she was practice that goes on officers latics oscars druggy also indicated that other employees well save under the former police chief indicated that he was to call them there prior to a local topless bar being raided so the merc alert the owner and in fact the mayor received ten thousand dollars in of individuals who were indicted in charges never one was number of other individuals it was an ongoing investigation and other members of the op mayor's office had already testified and came forth and so my client they in fact lied and they expected her to do the same and she said she privileged information obtained on the phone my client's clients the e mails and text messages and the court ruled without the senator filing a motion that the plaintiff's husband's law office phone would be turned over for friends at that same phone conference i requested that the court allow meet they have the defendant's phones and their employees phones to do a forensic evaluation of them to know there was a tape right i'm the its prior to that but the friends went further requested forensic evaluation my client's husband's law office phone was seized and was granted we in turn request the same relief they are filed a motion to request it was diaper what was your reason for allowed to use or look at the phones themselves there was a reason for that one i mean you should've i could see asking for the examination to be narrow to that you know that tape but good morning your honor smegma cavanagh appearing on behalf of alan lambert we're going to be splitting our time between the three of us i just wanted to obviously that's if it's very thoroughly briefed and it's and it's all in the in the briefs i just want to address a couple of the issues and i think the questions judge right that you pointed to are the very questions that the district court had in their hands of saying when you know plaintiff need it's her it doesn't say when these statements were allegedly made from lambert to to williams that said shortly before her my point was terminated ok we'll give you some but what do you do about that i mean he's saying and we know that there's this is not out of whole cloth i mean there's some substance here about two bodies that maybe you wouldn't want people to know about so you have if you have him saying you know she talks too much and we need to get rid of her well and i think it matters i mean if you look at the and i think that that's what the district court did i mean even assuming it's an admission which it's conclusory she had to be let go that unremarkable i mean we knew this and the record establishes you know the task force was this was noted by the district or is that it was made to collectively by all of the by a team of persons representing the various departments so i think even giving going so far is that in the record who represented this and she but she can't identify or doesn't have any evidence that this was in fact when this decision was made or who that was made but even assuming that that these individuals the individual defendants were part of that decision part of this ok we'll give up this person that is short well and i mean but if you look again i mean the timing of this sort of squishy timing of well three months before or you know maybe it was it was some time before the mellon which milledge when was this meeting had when was it done i mean but the what the record shows is that you know there's a round of layoffs in august of ten this this i won't lie to the police happens in may of two thousand and ten supposedly she doesn't get included in the first round of layoffs which happened a couple months after that she doesn't get laid off until may or march of eleven almost a year later and then she doesn't even talk to the michigan state police until over a year until a year after her took her being laid off to say that this i'm going to tell the police the truth does and i was there an investigation going on this whole time there was an investigation i believe initially started in in two thousand and one into the police department it was sometime in two thousand and ten when when there was an investigation opened into  then the fact that the position was protected does go against you but were they all protected how many of these positions did he have how many of  well he had plaintiff was serving in that position so why isn't it if he was entitle to have that position why isn't that relevant why i think i think you know you have to again it has to be related to a retaliatory motive and where you have the evidence that comes forward with they have not been able to rebut even assuming that say that gets her past a prime aphasia case that this there was a rick wrecked requirement by the second round you know or by january of two thousand and eleven that five percent cuts had to be taken somebody from each office somebody from the mayor's office had not been included in the first round they couldn't avoid it any further there is no dispute that she was the lowest person sort of on the totem pole or the least disruptive to the operation of the the mayor's office and obviously and so that isn't  rebutted by her and so they are do you come back with further to say well no that's either not true or that is in fact a pretest what she's saying is that is a pretext because the mayor did not have to get rid of this position that it was not that at that other members or other members of the department took on some of that role and and therefore the question of thank you thank you morning your honor richard stoking on behalf of pelee betsy kravitz i don't want to go over everything i do i think most of everything has been brief just touching on that last point plaintiffs are hanging their hat on that the charter says the mayor's entitled to a secretary the position if it's that's a position it's not for that specific person all that when you read the charter as a whole it means that they're entitled to have somebody in this case the mayor had a chief of staff had a ministry of assistant which was julie my client but she krampus was the chief of staff and then she had a secretary which miss ghazal filled that's all the charter really reads for it's not specific to say you can get rid of the chief of staff you can  the other person but you can't get rid of the secretary that's not how it's read as a whole and that's how plaintiff is taking it and i don't think the court the district court didn't take it that way and i think this court shouldn't either as far as the statements  cases based on the that the city made up this economic crisis and i think the facts bear it out as a district court found and just common sense the crisis the financial crisis two thousand and eight two thousand and nine into twenty ten is not made up the city obviously went through two layers of layoffs initially the mayor's office was not impacted the second time it had to be along with some other departments which previously hadn't been impacted and as fellow council pointed out they went to the least destructive position in the mayor's office to lay off and she wasn't terminated she was laid off and when the plaintiff mentions the documents saying all the talking to show that she was terminated not laid off there was telling even even if you have laid off that that's that is unclear how he's rendered you tell me that a fact should really provide that information a fair burden and that your honor it is unclear from the record as district court pointed out and the district court did plaintiff's job and went through it you know so we don't have to do the job it will scour the record to scour the record and couldn't find that answer who actually made the decision who was on that committee the only evidence that plaintiff has presented it was that there was a meeting and julie would talk ok mout and told plaintiff that her name was discussed while there was fact finder i don't think so i think for the reasons the district court found because when you look at the timing of everything when you look at the when she talks about beheading the get handed this pink slip in two thousand and ten up that's just to be laid off for several months later she doesn't talk the michigan state police to two thousand and twelve there's no evidence that the michigan state police are even looking at anything in the mayor's office at that time now that they didn't see it because if you want us to look at this in terms of discre events what he's arguing is that this was a continuum of corruption the influence interaction between the parties and that you can't go back  and in the kind of segmentation i guess that you're talking about it they're trying to tie everything together because when you try to break it down it timelines it doesn't it doesn't tie into any adverse employment more layoffs were needed if the millage didn't pass a bunch of people were handed layoff notices which were everybody agrees were going to be rescinded if the millage passed so i think when you when you look at the evidence plaintiff has presented if every if she had proof of those claims had presented evidence of those claims maybe there would be more weight to it but there's not all the allegations that the mayor the campaign contributions and all that stuff where's the proof of that claim that there were false names signed on campaign country where those documents they didn't present any of this they only presented hearsay and claims from this person that person this person said that oh how how was that hearsay for somebody to say the mayor i was told they had to do this by the mayor or i was threatened with this the question becomes is what were you threatened with and when and in the context of that one the two statements that he's referencing to the junior williams and specifically my client betsy krampus there's no what we have in the context of when those statements were made us that question you know when when was the decision made to lay off or when when were those made claims made he's not going to know because there's no proof in the record when it was plaintiff didn't couldn't say when it was miss williams didn't say when it was mr she didn't know so when you they want you to look at everything and say the city's a bad these are bad actors therefore my case should go forward but when the district court went through the evidence and when they were presented with their burden of proof they simply didn't meet that and i would ask the court to affirm of i believe at this point it sounds like most of the main points in response to argument have been fleshed out by my co counsel and by the court so i would use my remaining time by asking the court if it has any more questions on our position that i can answer of two thousand and ten and then after that her name never came up or being laid off if you would into after such time as she indicated she would not lie and she told exact date but i mean i don't have that for me but it at any rate my client talked about her position in job security units we argued proper serious stoppel in fraud claim the double hof and was the finance director and c was the human resource director and both of these people informed my client that her job was protected by charter her job now other people in the office her job was tech protected by charter and she was also informed by betsy crap it's one of the defendants but the same thing her that within the discretion of trial it is a discretion but there's usually a two step process one is going to show excusable neglect and there's no harm to the to the plaintive and this particular case my client would not afford an opportunity to resume those issues the granted i mean but but if the district court under its order allowed the filing and address that why what's your basis for asking this court it will be the authority of the court to strike that prowling if in fact the district court who has the prerogative to manage the case has allowed it to be filed we were we were even able to file appropriate brief in objections it was  granted without without ever being able to file under local rule seven one usually not using most times all the time under rule six point one four there has to be a showing of excusable neglect and that wasn't done either good causing excusable to black and none of that was ever demonstrated so that's what we are a few thank you thank you all the case will be submitted we're going to take a quick break and come back and finish the other two ca