and twenty minutes for him to do that and when he sought to depart he found itself locked in the jet bridge with no way to contact operations at the on the date of the incident there was no there was no phone number posted there was a frequency but that would involve returning to the aircraft and powering it up and things of that nature captain jeyes was in urgent need to use the restroom in returning to the aircraft in starting the aircraft the e b u the small jet engine that provides power to it was not an option it was going to with permission to leave the area which he did during the entirety of the conversation no mention of any kind was made that the captain drives under some type of a requirement statutory or otherwise to cooperate with mr low sa and it is imperative to note that the only thing that captain jiving asked for was to be represented by counsel the ha's representative at that point did state to a captain drives that he was allegedly in violation of any rule published by the houston airport system a subsequent administrative hearing took place that supported the permanent lifetime ban  a subjected to some type of inquiry although no place in room forty one does it say that the arab and is required to participate in a discussion so basic principle here process that a mean forty one dollars identifies it mandates that the texas failure refusal to fully completely time into proof would cooperate but then it goes on to state your honor including appearing when and at the place that designated with an investigation audit or proceeding by and or by or institute by or flowing from the acts of any division of h o a s misrepresentation are also occasion including but not limited to intentionally or knowingly negativity to the fact that they remain silent time clear that's of the miranda warning type of situation process that we see in the works very nervous all the time and for the life of me i cannot understand where an airman would go to find information regarding that they're supposed to be bound by these the use of this thing called the operating instructions published by the houston airport system you can find it on google it does not appear in any airport facility directories it doesn't appear in any reference materials that in your mind would normally access in fulfilling his obligations under the federal aviation regulations and so i'm not sure it does not give just like a fair vote as it gives no nos whatsoever to an airman flying into any of the houston airport system airports that if you fit if you refused to comply with the you know these these contract her offer when we read the rule would cause us to believe that ms flanagan would be a disinterested party to the case but in terms of looking at the subject process and the fact that all the case stands a proposition that you need a fair impartial what was the what was the home or authorized to find out whether there are here they were here or there to hear this the story told by each side of the case and what and whether or not the violation was in was as that because it was in the original complaint but then taken out with us when they said they made it their complaint so yesterday don't think we would have the authority to remand two judges like to have him consider  claim presented to the district court it that's correct it's not here now i think just it is that if the court did that this is because the court has great role in the court and so i can't say that you don't have the authority to do that but i am saying that it wasn't before the district court and if somebody says in breach of contract we can't grant relief or toward exactly and so it does seem to be the wrong way to go about this i suppose if you process is presented yes it is when we talk about that well there's no evidence of the constitutionally protected right here oh he's talking about his freedom interest and deciding his  his career choice and where he wants to do that where he wants to apply that career choice and incidentally i agree with judge just this of having a subjective attitude that maybe i'm about to be arrested and so i don't want to answer questions the subjective perception of this is immaterial what matters is that here's what he knew that he'd have violated the rule forty one failure or refusal to listen to these words fully completely timely and truthfully cooperate and then it goes on to have a few more lines but that  opening friends is fully completely time as in right now and truthfully and so when he tells mr lowe's that i'm not going to answer any questions until i have a lawyer city is trying to protect everybody at its airports and all that's necessary here to make this rule constitutional is that you have the russian relations with the city's important policy maker of the city if you see maybe the council at some point in the past when they created these used the airport system delegating to them the authority to use rules to secure and you don't know  operating instructions i think it disposes of any complaints that mr low sac was anything but the tip of the spear operating on behalf of the city of houston the houston airport system going back those lakes opinion first of all just like gave little to no consideration to the fact that all that captain jeyes had asked for was to be assisted with counsel that not almost all work in that he never got a chance to answer any questions because mr low sick cat cutting him off at every opportunity now the problems i have is that you know one man stealing is another man's floor and so this the los that comes in and he knows that he's trying to elicit some cooperation kept in jobs and i don't know about your experience and just in just regular human interaction if you want about his cooperation you don't generally go to them with a vigorous combative aggressive accusatory tone and expect anything good to come out and unfortunately that's what happened this looks like not only on this occasion but your contention is he didn't cooperate answer the questions because the officer was very belligerent he never had the chance your honor he was cut off at every and that this is it this is uncontrover sanction appears as a lifetime ban that's not the end of the in korea because otherwise there would never be a constitutional challenge that if the sanction of appears in some statute or some rule someplace was that one of the a class two violation  sanction prescribed was was death by firing squad i seriously doubt that that would meet the constitutional commands with respect to whether or not it's an excessive fine and therefore the inquiry just because it appears in the operating instruction does not mean that it's an excessive and if you look at the spirity between the amounts of controversy in vidual subject up to a ten thousand dollars fine even though the actual amount of controversy for the case was far lower than that on the strength of that as the of the state of indiana million dollars which would seem to be not rationally related to any any particular goal or to get a one million that's is based on his career goals are going to make it probably by his republican really enjoy his career aspirations include