with me one second  evidential admission the the the factual record does not that that is the deposition transcripts do not in any statements that were submitted do is that the city fired the plaintiffs because his wife wrote a memo attacking the mayor spunge it and can question is that your mike yes it is my theory that my client was fired because his wife had published a memo that offended the mayor and the substance of that myth that memo while well there is no evidence of the substance there is a characterization as judge can point it out of th well i didn't point out anything i was just repeating what you had suggested in your your answer to an earlier question that that's apparently what the  we don't know the substance of that memo we know that it was something about it was offensive to the mayor because it led to many blues hiring and we know that  marcus pac aspiring occurs at the same time as many blues fiery so you can call it a coincidence it all it also comes on the heels of well i should say comes on the heels the mayor at front of a jury and having her subjected to cross examination and eyeballed by the jury it's easy to say it's easy for the city to say look we this is what she said therefore it must be true and that's why he was fired not because of his affiliation with his wife but cases are not decided on the basis of self serving statements case admission in your law below that the memo attacked the mayor's budget is that sufficient to create an issue of well no  me since you know there has been some discovery in all of this with your attempts on your part to have the defendant produce the memo is there any the plaintiff produce a memo is there any explanation for why the memo is not part of the record to in response to some questions of judge chen that there was a sufficient except in sympathy characterization of the memo on your part to make that an admission do you want to tell us why we should or shouldn't be persuaded by that some sort of tangible proof that mark terminated because of something his wife did and here unlike in adler there's no evidence of that there's no evidence of any negative attention or embarrassment brought on by any statements regarding this blue about this improper outsourcing there's no there's no evidence that ties it in what and your response to that is one it's not enough i mean it requires speculation you have to have some sort of handle evidence more than timing timing as borne out in the record is because two separate incidents dispute so yes that's what you have this is her political ploy her you know the person who speaks to her on labor relations matters and she believes the wise to work and not only that be a legitimate grounds for termination to extent that there will be some sort of conflict between the handbook and the city charter then the city charter necessarily prevails because it's a governing document for the city  served at the pleasure of the mayor because we don't know from the city's submission what the where the department the position of the labor director s i have a question for you if am i correct in understanding that the only evidence you have that the husband was fired based on the conduct of his wife was the is the proximity of  the chronology now my question to you is the defendants have come forward with a distinct driessen for his firing namely the  all the the vagueness of the mayor's testimony as to the scope of that investigation and i heard this from this guy heard this from that guy and putting all that aside i'm just going to go with my mother's wit and and decide that i can't trust you anymore and that's that's really what it what it came down to so the question is do you just believe her self serving statements or do you give mr packer an opportunity to cross examine her in front of the jury and let the jury decide whether what she whether her self serving statements are in fact the truth or were intended to  even before he spoke to the mayor i thought there was evidence to that effect there was there was the claim relating to the i think you're referring to the cleaning related to the the flash drives and what happened to the flash drives and whether mr packer himself was responsible for disclosing the these confidential attorney client memos to or i don't want to