given any reason as to why donna nicholson was not selected as the asset forfeiture officer and twenty fifteen there is no evidence or argument that she performed poorly on an interview in two thousand and fifteen response on those concepts that the chief of police for the city of peoria had its hands tied he simply did not have the authority or ability to reassign her to any other position other than patrol initially the testimony of stephen starting his guard that was relied on by the district court should have been treated as unreliable he testified in his deposition in this somebody capable of lying in federal court the district court rely heavily on the evidence submitted by the defendant and the testimony of stevens i'm sorry and that was simply the wrong like the district court did not look at the evidence in this case in the correct light which is the light most favorable to the plaintiff the not moving part the suggestion that the police of chief did not have the ultimate authority as a decision maker for promotions and transfers is not true and they cited page sixty seven in page one fifty three of settings guard deposition but the evidence does not say what they claim it's settings are testified about transferring officer wilson the officer that was accused of stocking dynamic something other than the exit for which he could approach put her in a destructive position or any other position that the evidence really wasn't expanded on as to where else he could have put her  but i do believe the evidence does not support their position that his hands with type of patrol when there's another one other people in this is a breeze may be true they haven't had to prove that the number of brother officers when they left the specific assignment they did act like a detective you don't have to carry around a twenty pound weight belt on patrols with all the equipment and everything that the patrol officers have to wear with or without but i want a lot of people transfer a lot of the officers transferred to patrol at the same time she was your honor there were other officers transferred to patrol pursuant to that rotation policy none of which were officers i had specialty positions like the plaintiff did that what they were specialty positions of the individuals there were at least three officers that we know of all male well they the other side says  more than twenty male officers and sergeants were transferred to patrol from specialty assignments some time but if you look at the evidence your honor they were not actually from specialty assignments if you were the they were not specialty assignments or they were other positions they could have come from the detective bureau but they were not specific specialty assignments like the liquor investigator the at that forfeiture officer they did not come from specialty positions but you don't know that no i do not believe that the evidence supports their position that those individuals that were per chance heard from patrol were often specialty positions if that's what the governor the governor or the government to the court find that or make any finding on that issue the court basically if i recall correctly correctly in his order we're live on the defendant's evidence with respect to the specialty physicians that yes which again should have weighed if it was a disputed issue which it was it is basically there was an entire unit is called the special investigation division or department slash the vice unit that was the unit of which the plaintiff was a member of that was also the unit was got jordan was a member of it was basically the city of peoria as a person of a swat type team but they had specific specialty assignments in it and if you were assigned of that division you got special perks over time take them vehicle that those types of things i do not believe that there is any evidence that the defendants admitted that those individuals those twenty officers that were transferred to control at the same time actually were specialty positions i believe that's what the evidence  the asset forfeiture officer and she'd been the after forfeiture officer and brought in over six million dollars from the city of europe for ten years when she didn't hear over to ten at the time that she lost the position in two thousand and twelve when she went in there she knew it was a lot of information it's a lot a lot it's a lot of technical she did what some lawyers do she kind of scripted it to a certain extent she read it but the interesting thing is when you look at the interview no it's what the comments are with respect to the interview  they say she performed poorly but that they don't indicate that she read this long statement they indicated that she was due for a change well ten years it is when you believe she was entitled to have it forever under the circumstances with respect to the individual that they put in there absent late she would be entitled to it had they applied the rotation policy evenly they did not apply the rotation policy evenly they shut down  the counsel referred to lawyers who read from notes one of the things that i learned from move court back many decades ago is that reading from notes is not a good persuasive way of presenting yourself that's not and an effective thing the same concept applies during an interview and in fact the plaintiff testified that she was not aware of anyone who had read notes like that during an interview counsel referred to specialty assignments and she said that there was a list but there are only two specialty assignments where and liquor control is i am not aware of any document in the record that says that there are two positions that are specialty assignments and that it's these two positions i think that the term specialty assignments is more generic and it applies to anything that's not patrol the record here shows in pages four ninety five and four ninety six the your honor is asking the question about the documents that shows the transfers those document shows transfers of the individuals from the different positions that they were in to patrol i think that those answer the questions with a distinction might be i don't know where you don't have to wear the twenty pounds of their f protection and for other enforcement and on these special assignments so it seems to me it's when you're not patrolling you're something else that may be labeled special to you but i think that's true judge there may be ok i'd like to address a couple of quick points first something that was addressed in the briefs and that has not been addressed yet today but i think is important is the motion for recusal there are to my knowledge three different situations where a judge may be required to recuse him to herself from a case first is and the as constitutional due process that is not the issue in this case this is not a constitutional due process case the caperton case that cited in the briefs make it clear that constitutional due process for recusal it does not involve circumstances where there's allegations of bias that's the alley it's been forty years since he worked for the city of the ori that's exactly right judge the allegation here was by us it's not a constitutional issue it's a statutory issue there's two statutory issues first of section one forty four second a section four fifty five ultimate been discussed in the briefs under a section one forty four recusal it's initiated by a party by an affidavit but the affidavit must include the details that show actual bites it's not enough under section one forty four analysis for there to be a possibility of bias there must be an allegation of actual bias in this instance what the allegation was is i believe judge man was biased that's not an allegation of fact it's a conclusion that need not have been and was not properly excepted by the district court this is not a section one forty four case which the phone dition of that something other than the fact that he used to be city attorney no judge that was the only foundation on the sleeves that were the kids never time the city is involved in lawsuit which is probably pretty often he would have to recuse that's exactly right now one thing i do a vice versa they argued to no avail i argued manifest weight the truth is that the cases from seven circuit go both ways the case that  hard to believe i said i wish i had addressed that more thoroughly in the briefs the bottom line here let me address section four fifty five very very briefly four fifty five is the obligation is on the judge him or herself if there is a reasonable possibility of an appearance of impropriety or bias then the judge is obligated to recuse him or herself but again that the question as your honor mentioned is whether the circumstances the reasonable possibility of bias a forty year lapse does not do that we've cited the te's act case that shows that eight years was too long so the bottom line here is that this was not ever quetzal case that motion wasn't properly presented it this case and what kind of is argued is a summary judgment decision the summary judgment decision is reviewed here didn't overall it doesn't matter what judge men did or didn't do because your honors are going to be reviewing the substance of the decision while i don't think that judge men did anything wrong in fact all set stronger judgment did nothing wrong that whole issue as are all the underlying issue is whether he properly granted summary judgment in favor the city of peoria and chief setting start on that issue the key argument that the plaintiffs have made is to suggest that he didn't follow ortiz ortiz was issued one week after he issued the summary judgment decision but when the issue was raised before a judge memo on the motion to reconsider he looks specifically at that look back at his order and said that's what i did what the standard that i followed was in fact whether in point in the director or indirect method this court must determine whether a reasonable jury could find the defendants in gauged in retaliatory action page eight appendix page eight there are four different places in his summary judgment decision where he said exactly that the resultant issue is whether a reasonable jury could find for the plight the judge when he was reviewing the motion to reconsider looked at that looked that the judge did it both ways he for he did go through the mcdonnell douglas analysis but he also then addressed that at the end of the day of the the real question is is there enough evidence here that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiffs he did the alternative and that's exactly what ortiz says is that we should do it one of either of the two ways either way is appropriate the t he analyzed each one of the issues that were addressed his decision was entirely proper there's one thing that has been raised actually two things i guess that plaintiffs have for a sense then that judgment didn't really address or didn't have an opportunity to address one of the things that they've argued in the brief is that leadership or which they don't define but when you look at their record cites for the position that they're taking it refers to a particular sergeant or the union officers that were there that leadership made statements appearances she claims at one point that sergeant machine ski gave now lieutenant kerry davis completely different reason for why she was not selected to remain in the asset forfeiture position but when you look at the record page one three four three deposition of the time davis page twenty six lines one line twenty one what she testified is that mission's key said one of the reasons why she wasn't selected to retain that position she did not tell her a completely different reason as donald as has been alleged counsels also argued about the two thousand and fifteen decision this case was presented based upon an amended complaint referring to the removal from the asset forfeiture position in two thousand and twelve that was effective on january sixth two thousand and thirteen there is nothing in the complaint that refers to two thousand and fifty there's nothing in the complaint there's nothing in the record to suggest here that the plaintiff has satisfied any of the administrative requirements in order to pursue a claim based on not receiving the position in two thousand and fifteen or frankly on anything that happened after two thousand and twelve that's not an issue that was before the district court and i don't think it's an issue that this court should address that she had been an patro says we noted in our response that they hadn't made any arguments as to the claims against steve settings guard individually we noted that since they hadn't made any arguments about that we assume that the arguments against him had been waived their reply says that no we haven't waived that that it's still live although they still haven't addressed anything of substance i would ask your honour's that if you believe that those claims are still there we didn't have an opportunity to respond to anything in our response because there was nothing in the or plaintiff's original brief if you're honest believe that we should have responded i would direct your attention to the record pages to eighteen through two twenty three and one three nine one through ninety two those were the farm if you had a history of seventeen other cases in which every single time you decided in favor of the justice department or the government yes that is a demonstrated unknown bias that you would have to disclose and wait a minute no no i  and the state courthouse there is a judge that worked for the city of chicago over twenty years ago every time attorneys appear in front of her she discloses the fact that she worked for the city of chicago she errs on the side of caution what about justice is it is not our contention that every single time the case appears in front of us it has but that obviously i focus more on the summary judgment issue i like to talk about burden shifting because that means the plaintiff actually met her crime a face a case now with respect to or judge men did look at were ts but he said i did it the right way but he didn't do it the right way the first time and with respect to carrie davis's testimony in counsel's remark with respect to that that one of the reasons why that th point is they gave inconsistent reasons they were all over the place that testimony that evidence should have weight and play in his favor it simply did not and with respect to two thousand and fifteen on page twenty seven  spree i do discuss the fact that the retaliation is continued we don't have to fight we don't have to go back and restart the administrative process every single time they retaliate against or specially in this case because there's been so much of it you the reason that your point about members should and you wouldn't have any idea what in this person's history influence influences is followed says the judge unless she did a complete study of the person's history where he went to school who he dealt with cetera et cetera where he succeeded where he failed right no one does that no i agree nobody does that so what do you but you pick on one aspect the fact that he many years ago he worked for or peoria seems to me very unlikely that is having worked for purity of many years ago affects the way he thinks about criminal cases today that it wasn't a criminal case but i disagree that the way that working for an individual that provides your paycheck you know you are all wrong people have jobs they go in they they have new jobs many years ago the original chops to not live some lead leave some life time stamp that affects how they behave twenty thirty forty years later and i have people's minds work phony excuses that the real reason for her not getting that position was nothing but pretax and with respect to four fifty five b three and the recusal both judge man and defense counsel rely on for fifty close to being a government employee employee and i believe that that shows the extent to which he was by the rich as it was not appropriate in this case the motion to reconsider did not permit prompt the district court to revaluate re evaluate the evidence the way it should have been reevaluated