here the argument is they have to ignore criminal conviction of the spouse but you can imagine lots of other arguments one common rule isn't and i never to rule that you can't be married to somebody who's working for the same general employer and there's such a rule that applies to us federal charges so right and i never to some rules are routinely challenge and routinely sustain so i'm asking where you go for the proposition  a public employee are asked to ignore spousal so i don't believe that we are asserting that the governmental entity here had to ignore this policy i would assert that in this instance the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint which have to be taken as true at this stage because it was ruled upon by the district court on a twelve motion we don't lanch that she wasn't and i am trying to do that your honor i believe that the only response that i can give you in terms of me case would be the montgomery case or the county of sacramento case that instances where we are going to risk bricked someone's right to intimate association which would be policy that would impact someone's spouse but there has to be a legitimate reasonable basis for the conviction rules spousal political action rule and say nepotism rules these are very common rules in public workplace and if there was no distinction that would be a big surprise  in the state of illinois that convictions and how we look at convictions of individuals is certainly changing and if your honour's would give me the opportunity i can certainly look and submit a post memorandum on that particular conjunction with the separation of this employee because of her relationship with her husband in fact creates a cause for action for  you're making a federal constitutional argument it is as i said in the last case we see all too many cases where the boor of making a constitutional mark seems to dissuade people from making straight forward state law are but we're here we have to figure out whether there's not whether as a matter of but i do think that there is and i recognize your honor that certainly the due process clause is not as broad as the tort law and your honor has even indicated that rationale in the in the christian case again but here i think we have a situation where the abuse of government power by the the decision makers in this case who specifically told ms gerhardt let's go back and try my question again worse to have a law that says we must have somebody who works for the cops can't be married to the robbers well in this instance i would not asking this particular employer is articulating that there is some reasonable basis for this policy and yet they completely ignore in forcing it against anyone else so i do think that the facts of this particular case could say that's ridiculous they were both fine just one of them still is a fine joke but you've already conceded that the nepotism rule is valid and now you've got it tell me why the criminal conviction rule well the nepotism rule i think in the instance of being applicable to the judiciary is because there is a rational objective basis constitutionally that there could be the  and if it weren't forced and there was a shalini that there was an objective reasonable basis for that then i i think that i couldn't meet the standard for a due process violation i believe  county has this rule that in force that against my client and not against other people you would then have to deal with the fact that the supreme court has that equal protection class of one arguments do not apply i believe that is a viable argument is that the use of power by the macon county supervisor senior personnel and in fact the chairman of supports that macon county can certainly be a joint employer with the state's attorney's office and amanda berger was a many and county employee who was simply assigned to work at the state's attorney's office the allegations of the complaint establish she was required to follow macon county policy that greg mattingly the chairman of the board oversaw her as the direct supervisor and that nicole cranky and  ms berger was terminated was making and county attorney on behalf of the making county board and i would then ask just to reserve my remaining time for a bottom thank you certainly needs to justify it only on a on a rational basis i think that it's a reasonable and rational that the people who work for the cops can't be married to the robbers that it's it's rational for the state's attorney's office to avoid the appearance that there's a criminal element working within his office especially at a high management level such as mr berger had as the personnel director i also think it's it's reasonable for the state's attorney to restrict access to confidential i would have to say that the district court's ruling did not necessarily reflect my reading of the amended complaint not to say i disagree with the district court's decision and i think in my reading of the many complaint was more  has complete control over his office and its internal functions and the ability to i forget the exact words of the statute but something along the lines of procuring goods and services to function so not in the complaint as far as i'm aware of it is the st time i've heard the allegation that the maker in this case was someone other than the state's attorney and in fact even such an allegation would fly in the face of the island i love which says that a few other points to raise  and this is one for the deprivation of intimate association i must say i don't understand that part of the district orchestrated the supreme court has ruled that it doesn't make any difference  complaint sites or whether it cites any at all because complaints grievances they don't plead and here we have a decision by district judge saying well you didn't plead the right law and just seem to go smack in the face and maybe it just doesn't matter ultimately i don't think it matters here i don't think that the allegations in the complaint claim for of a free speech his regarding some risk management issues simply as they were being paid some issues of employee abuse of substances basically h r type issues there's no material in her complaint suggests that she had a continued property right in order to possibly suggest that entitlements are relief under a procedural to process theory with repeat brief you don't have to repeat things in order to preserve it oh ok well i guess i shouldn't say that really well argue cases don't have implied groups of all because they have already anticipated the arguments the a respect to the requirement rule eight and what the supreme court has indicated in terms of what has to be in a brief i would assert that we have indicated a grievance with respect to the speech burger and counsel indicate well we're going to go right into this car safety issue i would assert here that in the end a burger as the personnel director certainly it was within her job duties to comment on people she reported to greg mattingly that the state's attorney was abusing funds of the county that the state's attorney was breaking illinois law and doing illegal things as well as nicole cranky she reported for violating right to privacy in the workplace i would assert that certainly we have alleged a sufficient grievance on the st amendment and that all of those