arizona house of representatives without a hearing before a committee of his peers based instead on a law firm report that was done by private interviews and that was edited by defendant messner art before it evidence against rita you can see were far worse than what were the allegations against souter in fact even a law firm concluded that most of the allegations that were made against shooter without merit but there is no mention as well but our response to that is that yes they were on fair warning that what they were doing was a constitutional i direct your attention to the case of the well who says i think that's the established practice and may i note montserrat of the new york state senate case where a state senator was expelled exculpatory information that's not then provided you don't have a committee hearing in which there is you know cross examination presentation of evidence the normal process that's always been filed before and that's why it is due process constitutional role a rule already don't fight in the decisional law may apply with ideas clearly the specific conduct in question and the court went on to say officials can be on notice that their conduct have this situation that was totally novel but it cannot be that you don't have due process restrictions in the in the case because what you then do which is why i think the district court did is to excuse the end excusable just because there's not a specific sort case before and there's not a specific case before because nobody had ever done it before this weight and was obviously clapping in due process that's the probably sound desperate and the nd circuit rule stigma plus is a put well there and that's what we say stigma plus is a but will there and they went on to say due process happened to be provided there because there was a committee hearing one of the representatives and we played just study counts and said afterward quick follow the wrong process there's never been if will never an explosion of a state representative who elected by his constituents by this process of you know it's not the case when you hire a law firm and you're paying it you're paying it that's also some of the facts that are overlooked here and that report is then added you know  you don't have it even in the corporate sphere reports them then are going on when if you laded and accepted as chief heir it wasn't a fair process here and i'd also say that nobody would say we can do away with the trial all we need is someone from the go out and write a report i can tell you from over forty years experience that's a bad idea we i personally think proudly jury are the best way to decide to speed if you but we have a trial that organize the evidence you don't have that with the law from reports and what purposes you may have a gun law reform law firm report in a corporate context totally different than what we have here in this mr shooter alleges he should receive and the alleged violation of his constitutional rights all calling legislative theater as mr kelly just explains and do not involve action initiated or participated in by mr adams is anybody going to defend the district course opinion yes and i worked on the qualified immunity question because i think that's a yes and i would love to turn to that  deficiency it seems to us in mr shooter's briefing is that he's attempting to define the constitutional right at that cheney high level of generality that he falls into the trap that the us the current court has repeatedly rejected so we see that for example in the what you call it from two thousand and seventeen exactly what the court there cautioned against is what would happen here if we are to course i think regardless of which strong the court starts with the individual defendants prevail and particularly with respect to the adams and all its law and i think there's three issues with respect to mr liberty interest where he contends that he had the stigma plus liberty interest because he was found to have created a hostile work environment and was expelled from the house  comparable to art our case here it's interesting the expulsion of a new york senator under a york lot and that's important i think because when you look at the court's decision in montserrat well mr shooter argues that they for this purpose of course so in those cases while they rely on different law this statute that they are relying on involved a requirement that there be a specific finding before be elected official can be removed that is not the case than the arizona law there's no statute and no constitutional requirement of a committee hearing or a finding of criminality prior to an requirement here so i think that he would not constitute any sort of notice let alone a binding precedent or a robot consensus a piece of it that would have pleased anyone in mr adams or mr few more seconds i have is that in that case the court ultimately says that while it recognizes the post liberty interests for the board member and it allowed a claim by the and the investigative team that those individuals didn't actually have the power to especially the prospect that the board member was claiming she was deprived that well here that same fact pattern holds true with respect to mr adam secure your claim and if your choice in the in not being a senator anymore earth a senator sounds like a loss of status it's an alteration it's sad it for sure it didn't not prevent mr shooter from running for office again in the future and in fact a few months later he did run for office again and it did not prevent him from seeking any other employment nor does he allege that he has been prevented from his profession of choice in the future when he ran again much defended the position that the essentially that the plus had to have it's own liberty or property interests which can't be gray correct correct i don't think it has to be it does not have to be a separate property interest iraq thank you vocus felt he was the private of a right to reply and when you come in terms of orally he never had any opportunity except to talk about mitigation when they took the boat but that's the the horse is out of the barn he didn't have a fair opportunity and that's why i do say you gotta look at the facts of this case right we just learned he didn't have the opportunity when the vote was found to get up and say that this report is wrong and here is why it's wrong and  he had the opportunity then but at that point you have everybody reading every port without the benefit of a committee hearing that he didn't have any cross examination right it didn't have a wing what the facts are and that was an afforded that on shooter all he could do was at the horse was out of the barn at that point there was no opportunity to prosecute a man present his own witnesses was promised five days to be able to d hand that didn't happen they voted before that i thought and might i add on montserrat it you don't get into a process discussion without having concluded that there