granting the judgment understanding the verdict as to several of these situations i'm going to first start because there was two trials here i'd like to start with the the first file that's where you're asking there is there is certain not the adverse action aspect that kind of threads throughout the his opinion that struction is on adverse action were non existent really good for you in terms of just rubbish then saying that the jury got it wrong with respect to adverse action this is your you never been instructed as to when it happens action was over they're supposed to do this and that good for you number one the comments made by defendant burrell these were the discriminatory common trait the the argument that the defense counsel  in question is the initiation well and only the initiation of the internal affairs investigations and johnson brail in winterbottom all three defendants initiated internal again investigations against the plaintiff and the crux of this argument is that johnson himself as well as the court says even internal affairs investigation had an impact so best to defend it in the courts and statement so we've gone over the comments in the internal affairs investigations and those are both i believe that standard of adverse action and then it talks about testimony which i read as an implication to the jury finds that testimony credible it necessarily follows that there was an adverse action which is a big plat charge per se well i would encourage you to read it it's only thirteen pages long and it does not give the jury anything to go on as to what happens actionis on the timing issue it's extremely broad there's nothing referring to causation like hats off and it looks to me like everything a judge struck are just decided were things that the jury was never instructed had to prove had anything to do the judge treated like a bench trial great exactly but then when it came time to look at it all there all these legal limitations on what was to be decided that the jury was never  now i think that the the second stage of this i came in here expecting to be arguing on the court's judgment as a matter of law grueling this but from what you're saying is a matter of law and ruins the defendants who are and the court grew to a conditional new trial on various liability points and also at the very least on damages the standard for granting a conditional trial when judgment as a matter of law has been vacated in whole or in part is a tough one but it is sometimes nat a first amendment component ok and that argument which is addressed in our brief is is that there was no airing it has nothing to do with the subsequent extractions or anything else that was in the first amendment claim and that the fact that it was not protected conduct i was going to mention that this court's decision in green versus the philadelphia has an authority very brings in the somewhat similar situation where a police officer  testifying in court or coming to court and so on and what the court got to do they are that never was even discussed here but adds to the futility argument is the pickering balance and the reason why this was not going to stand up as a first amendment cloning in addition to the race claim is that it was inappropriate conduct brought disrespect to the state police interfered with the judicial process and so on the last thing i guess imbalance and what was brought out of court and what the jury did and he on move on the liability questions but also on damage it was with her it was on the point but with her because he said where if mr holt had testified to a greater degree on damages possibly facilitated and were to his favorite any larger than the huge words that he was which had no basis in the record now maybe mr hope didn't say mary much about it maybe it wasn't maybe that issue was an extraordinary well but certainly didn't hold the jury back and the jury came out with a boords that were completely off the