court to recognize an entire new category of jobs of government employees who can be subject to suspicion suspicion of searches whereas the supreme court has said that the judiciary must closely ask you  the entire category we're talking about is just school teachers rather than every employee and not only offer purposes today our purpose is today it's even more narrow your honor it is only aspiring substitute teacher sat and while the supreme court has said that the judiciary must closely guard and the new such category of jobs and almost all courts have refused to allow or to sanction such suspicion list drug testing of teachers the school board here demands that millions of teachers be subject to suspicion with searches ensue in so doing it is left to analogize aspiring substitute teachers to nuclear power plant operators at millions of aspiring substitute teachers for not in florida i would imagine within the eleventh circuit itself there are proper it's not the record i'm across the country certainly millions and we don't get to rule cross country on four fair enough maybe we could say a hundred thousand your honor  we know there are three point two million teachers in all in the united states how many is substitute i don't know i don't know we have heard break it down further i don't know how many wind up beach county make it the record doesn't reflect that it certainly does not you honor and but the jobs of those who manned nuclear power plant controls and who carry guns is far different from those of aspiring substitute teachers aspiring substitute teachers typically deal in five years ago in one of magine scenarios where students can be injured of course absolutely you can one can write a parade of you can one imagine scenarios in which a teacher it's vital that a teacher be in full possession of his or her faculties and able to react and react intelligently yeah that's that's what we're talking about absolutely bell let's measure that against a legal standard and what is the legal standard it's not whether the employee has anything to do with safety it's rather is this court has said whether the the category of employment is quote inherently dangerous job no it's not it's the category of employment is whether there are safety concerns and special concerns in a school setting the supreme court has said over and over and over again school is different and we're not talking about somebody working in a department store honor i was just quoting from le bron which is this court's opinion at seven ten f third twelve thank you we're counting quoting out of the context of it but in any event le bron didn't address this specific issue and doesn't bind us as to what the standard is for this specific type of case so let's talk about what does bind you for the specific type of case which is chandler and there this court said that you can create a new category of employees who can be suspicion list drug tested only if they quote typically perform high risk tasks typically perform let's accept to begin with that this case is different from an engineer driving a locomotive or an f t l ie official carrying a firearm or somebody driving a school bus short that doesn't answer the question or the problem because the issue here is whether one would create an additional category for teachers given the nature of the risk the nature of the harm the nature of the danger  want you to tell me why warden one wouldn't reasonably do that given the fact that students parents hand their kids over to the teachers at the schools who hold in the local  and the risks come up in manifest different ways it's not simply because some lunatic walks into the school with a firearm and shoots the place up the rest can be two kids get into a fight you need a teacher to break it up quickly someone pulls a knife you need a teacher to respond quickly a student is allergic to peanut butter and someone has peanut butter and jelly for lunch and he goes into an to lactate shock and boy you better respond quickly other kids dead student get strep throat temperature soars to one hundred four and you need to respond and get him home or get him to a nurse quickly the natures of risk are different than someone who drunk driving a locomotive but the risks are here the dangers are powerful believin if they are of a different category than slamming a locomotive into a automobile and what i want you to tell me is why this doesn't fit squarely within this kind of concern about teachers being responsible for the safety and well being of the students who are their charge for anywhere between five and seven or eight hours a day or i have a legal answer and a practical answer your honor and i readily acknowledge the importance of teachers and of the sort of safety concerns that could be attending the schools i have two children my parents were teachers i very much understand this the legal answer is that we are dealing here with an exception is the legal answer an exception to the fourth amendments main rule which is that you have a warrant individualized suspicion and so there is a very closely guarded exception to that main rule and the courts are supposed to jealously guard that ok and so the standard as i said to chief judge carnes is that the employee must quote typically perform high risk tasks that is not the case with teachers not the typically part i see it's all in how you frame the question you frame it in terms of high risk tasks i framed it in terms of protecting the integrity and safety of students and so and i think that high risk well not in the sense of a firearm or a locomotive moving at eighty miles an hour correct but it's high risk in the sense that there's probable danger at every turn in a school and you've got a problem if that's teacher is drunk or stoned it seems to me and i want you to tell me why that isn't enough well in this context to create this special need for this category of course because we are not writing here and this is the factual part of the answer right so i started with the standard and the factual part of the answer is that we're not writing on a blank slate we have one hundred eight years of history with the thirteenth largest school district in the country and what is that shown us that not once in the hundred eight years has there ever been a problem rain court in our court has said that doesn't matter and besides you don't know it had been a problem or not well that's in the record and it is there were no it isn't in the record it isn't it can't be in the record you never know how was teacher would have reacted had the teacher been of a different mental state are motional state at the time you never know when there's been a tragedy in the past where some kids had an attack in the school and didn't make it  didn't make it without severe injury you never know whether the student the teacher was a little art and clear thinking as the teacher could have been that's not a controlled experiment we don't have a laboratory you can't say there's never been a problem but we do know is that it is their burden to show the special need and they have not come up with a single example supreme court has never required a special need in any of the school drug testing cases it has required a special need in the government employee no we're not come out and tell my school contacts you can't take this school substitute teacher testing case out of the school contacts sprin significantly this court has previously held a special needs in here in the public school context central in our view to the present case of the fact the subject this policy our number one children who have number two have been committed the temporary custody of the state as the school master the most significant element in this case is that the policy was undertaken in furtherance of the government's responsibilities on a public school system as guardian and tutor the children intrusted to their care the unique environment of the public school saying over and over and over again supreme court has told us it's ghouls are different that is true when we are talking about the standards relating to constitutional rights of students shouldn't be any different when you're talking about teachers who have been entrusted with the care and protection of those children if you hear if i teach or hears shots and has seconds to opera react is are the children going to be safer if the teacher is clear headed and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol are they going to be safer if she stoned if that is a question i will readily admit that it is when the  intoxicated it unfortunately is the question because just the school system has the right and i think balancing has the right under the fourth amendment to guarantee to the maximum  can that these teachers are clear headed and thinking clearly throughout the school day when there are children under their care and protection i understand that your honor i absolutely do and it all comes back to what is the standard that the supreme court has set down which is that their typical duties of the employee in question the typical duties must involve high risk let me ask the question to follow up on what judge corns a here you have a case that goes to the supreme court any student in extra curricular activity can be randomly tested for drugs i'm not even talk about student athletes now correct that was isn't the interest even more compelling here than there is in the interest the special need here a more compelling one for a teacher to be clearheaded than for testing i mean if you can test every student for extracurricular activities essential you can test every student period that actually is not true the only think there's a difference the only cases that have ruled on that issue have held in all student policy unconstitutional that in a footnote in our reply right why isn't there a more compelling interest for teachers than even students in extracurricular activities it's just the constitutional standard is entirely different that adults have a robust set of rights and that  our starting point are let's talk about the robust set of rights that a teacher has in the school aren't the privacy interests different teacher goes into a school don't they have diminished privacy expectations in so far as we look at the their belongings their purse their bags their lockers a little bit different in a school setting isn't it for teachers yeah i don't believe you don't think so you think that a teacher that a teacher is not subject to any more intrusive invasion of a purse or a bag in a school than say she might be in some other area know your honor for two reasons one  the legal standard is very different there what you know in a case like t l o the court was very clear that the issue there was the student's personal rights and moreover when this court has been looking at the privacy rights of employees and looking at whether they have a diminished expectation of privacy the court has looked at quote the physical and bodily invasions i may come out of slightly differently sex circuits suggested that when a person enters into the educational profession they do so with the understanding and expectation that the profession itself is heavily regulated as to the conduct expected of the people in the field that education is regulated in a very different kind of way much more pervasively and that too creates a diminished expectation or o to think the six ers who got that wrong in my opinion that is completely untethered from supreme court doctrine yes i do think you got it wrong the first of all the standard is bottle of physical or bodily invasions of privacy not state regulation more generally and what the sixth circuit was staying at knox is that there are a million state regulations that cover education that undoubtedly is true there are also a million regulations that cover politicians and judges and  of the united states has recognized that government employee employees in an industry that's regulated pervasively may have a license interest of of privacy that medically comes up in skinner which is a different context like cept that but the general observation seems to me maybe to have some some legs to it and if it doesn't tell me warning if you're in the skinner case it said regulated for safety right ok there is nothing in the record that teachers are regulated for safety zero and again that is not our burden to show that me ask you last question for me it's more of a statistical or empirical question please in this record is there any data that's  someone else is there any data here you're talking about substitute teacher vs other applicants or more generally teachers in general or applicants the school in general i don't know what kind of data do not have here yet we do have a a set of data from one full year which is what the school district gave us and what that showed is that a meager zero point six seven percent of the people who applied tested positive that is way way way below national averages what extent is that because of self selection if you know you're going to be tested you say well i'll put it off i've got a cold let's do it next week the week after if you're drunk and you're not going to be drunk the next day let alone a week later it is yet and if you're stoned you may not be a week later and that made the body may metabolize the drugs quickly is that part of the problem in terms of looking at this data and finding something meaningful in and that very well could be part of the problem as the district court every school day families entrust the safekeeping in the two diligent children to the nearly two of the nearly two hundred thousand children to the teachers and the substitute teachers who are employed by the school board of palm beach county substitute teaching which is the particular focus today is a unique job and it is one that presents important and specific safety concerns on the one hand the school board vest these substitute teachers temporarily with all of the critical responsibilities your honour's have been discussing of its full time teachers these include to name just a few the duty to detect and  report student health issues the duty to detect the use or possession of dangerous and illegal drugs busted it's and the duty to detect the possession of weapons but also the duty to respond emergencies absolutely or honor and and at all times to speak to my colleagues comment about whether this is a typical duty of a substitute teacher at all times substitute teachers are responsible for ensuring the safety of the students in their care in order to fill these critical responsibilities it is of the essence it is essential that substitute teachers be of sound and sober mind and able to respond appropriately at all times and the entire analysis here is essentially probabilistic isn't it to the extent that we're worried about a risk and a danger and we're trying to put something down prophylactic lead to eliminate the risk or danger that's essentially the task were about isn't it i believe that is correct your honor ok so if that's what we're about what reason how likely is it how much evidence do we have of substitute teachers coming to work either drunk or stoned readiness to be pretty on it's certainly not impossible is unlikely if not remote would that be a fair characterization i don't believe our record answers your question well he cites to the evidence for one year and he says if you look at the data the positive test was point six seven it was less than one percent and that was for the whole category not just for substitute teachers but for janitors or whatever correct and five of the four or five of those employees were substitute teachers within that subset of thirty and in your answer also that the only way to really get any accurate information on when himi teachers come to schools don't teach they would be surprised to asked and nobody's done that i mean if you tell somebody great we like your application first next month we're going to give you a drug test then get claim for a period of time most drugs and show up passed the test in men based on the first we can go and that wouldn't show up in anybody's data in anybody's record what that is perhaps true and it's sounds to me like your honour's are asking about the efficacy of this sort of pre employment test as compared with now i'm not i'm asking about how you can possibly say this many teachers show up under the influence of drugs or alcohol if you don't do surprise testing the most it understand you to be talking about is how many people flock the pre announce scheduled in advance screening at the efficacy of those tests i'm just talking about the absence of any surprise testing to get a grip on him many folks are under the influence of the only source we would have to gather that kind of data would be whatever reasonable suspicion testing in our schools might present but as we've explained but there's one other way you would look you would look retrospectively and ask is there any reporting of any incentive so how many over five years ten years twenty years and probably beach county and no one theoretically could look and say how many teachers have been sanctioned or censured for apparently coming to work drunk or stoned and if they come to work drunk that will be will be evident to other people in this do we have any data on that we do not know whether there was an recorded incident over five years ten years one year of teachers being sanctioned for being drunk on the job we did not produce evidence of that being a problem we did not i have to assume that if there was some data you would have presented that front and center and i would certainly present that if i had it that's correct and we would have certainly that doesn't mean the danger isn't real i'm just talking about probabilities here so the first question about probability it seems to me is how likely is it that a teacher a substitute teacher is going to come in drunk or stoned answer we don't know from the data because it really doesn't help us for all the reasons we've talked about but historically there's no pattern that we can point to suggesting that's an issue is that a fair statement that is but supplement that statement by saying the purpose of a prophylactic testing rejoinder stand i understand what the purposes so then the second part of probability it seems to me would be you would look at how common the danger would be the kinds of risks that we're talking about and there that may be hard to quantify but these emergencies can come up and a lot of different ways and then we to ask so how likely it is that a stone teacher is going to face a student who's going into shock because he touched peanut butter seems to me the numbers are small but that doesn't answer the question because the last part of the analysis is what's the gravity of the harm and so we would look at probability and gravity and when it comes to gravity though that's where your risks can go off the charts right absolutely or honor but at the end of the day the risks he argues are essentially so small that it can't be used on this record to justify so massive an intrusion because if you're right he says you can drug test three point two million teachers regularly on the front end to get the job and on the back end when they have the job that's what he says well at least i think that's the essence of what he's saying respond to one small point in your honour's question you said a massive intrusion  it's actually testing protocol the board uses is actually minimally interested under the supreme court you're only gets intrusive to say here's the cop go in the bathroom we're standing right out there with it and by the way we're going to search all your bags etc before you go  certainly recognize that as a fourth amendment intrusion it's enough of an i mean it depends on whose eyes we're talking about how big an intrusion it is but that's an intrusion it's enough of an intrusion to qualify as a search yes certainly does what the supreme court has disk is it more intrusive than looking in my bag it reveals i go to the i go watch the miami heat three blocks from here i go into the american airlines arena i get open up my back everybody does it to walk in i go through a magnetometer but they actually look in my bag is the nature of that intrusion different from them saying in markets here's a cop go into the bathroom give us a sample i can't answer your question with a reference to precedent in the sense of whether a court has said the search of a bag before entering a building for safety concerns is more or less intrusive than providing a urine sample what i can say is that the provision of a urine sample that the procedures we use for that provision have been described by the only reason i raise simply saying if the likelihood of the harm is exceedingly remote and i likely although real and the nature of the  substantial and it cuts across a large enough class and where obliged to make some kind of holistic balance how do we come at that problem all the court would look to is it enough to say if you save the life of one kid you know when three thousand school districts by god that is enough we don't know i'm just asking we would say that is enough well well how  you do say that's enough how do you weigh the fact that there was at least some some surveillance i mean the urine testing is a part of this surveillance but it's not as if the teachers are unser veiled they usually come in as i understand it about fifteen minutes before and talk to the ministre hers and and talk about the day and so forth and if they are visibly impaired at least enough they give rise to suspicion there's going to be action taken and substitute teachers are checked the record shows that they are maybe not routinely i mean paul is checked but they are often checked by principals and other teachers poking in the classroom during the day so we can say there's a great risk that needs observation but then we have to balance against that the observation that is provided and then we have to say is more needed so don't you think we at least in the calculus have to take into account some of this other surveillance that does occur absolutely or are essentially the point of the balancing inquiry is ultimately to determine whether to dispense with the default rule of individual last we're tending to learn whether this policy will serve a purpose that would not already be served by ordinary law enforcement or relying on an individual last bishan rizzi regime and so there are two points that are critical of that the first that the supreme court has said that when an employee can cause a great risk of harm before his or her signs of impairment would become noticeable to others that presents the interests jeopardized wiring individual assets can i can i pause just a minute there when you say when the employee is responsible for the harm i was a bit struck by the analogies that most of these cases postulate about harm risk very few of the postulated harms result from the teacher doing something to injure the child  unlike this a curate either the border i n a i n s people who could themselves cause the harm or the engineer on the train who himself could cause the harm there's one extra degree of remoteness here that is not present in those other presidents that is the harms that are mostly postulated here or harms that other people cause they talk about fighting in the school ground and taunting and and this cool kid eating a food something in and joking and then it isn't that the teacher caused the harm it is the teacher so you've got to step causation something else happened that was independent of the teachers being stoned or not and then the teacher secondarily quick responder does that make the harm more remote by adding one extra degree of causality to the factor doesn't it how does the supreme court use i'm asking this because i really don't remember the answer does a supreme court qualify the degree of harm the use additives like substantial or likely or are the is the harm in the not something that is the martians are going to land or something but do they have a quantify it by likely or not likely i'm sure they don't use that but they ever use words like substantial or real or anything like that substantial and real yes yeah but the real is real and immediate interest is it not i thought knurled that was the phrase they picked up from the respondents and addressed real in a ma interest to justify a policy of drug testing non athletes the extracurricular case so the court will analyze the nature immediacy of the government's interests in the balancing angry but in terms of the school board meeting its burden of production to show a substantial ne irrelevant here that if you looked at in the case of railway workers driving locomotives the supreme court's ready with that there's no question there are so many accidents caused over a certain period of time so many deaths attributable to misconduct on the part of somebody driving a locomotive and yet when it comes to schools the adjectives and adverbs may be there but the data sure isn't if you look at the extra curricular activity of students there's no data right correct and so when we're assessing come in their words there is substantial meaningful real concrete but all stated that a higher order of abstraction untethered from data that would be a fair statement wouldn't i wouldn't agree that it's stated at a high level of abstraction we believe we've shown that the danger is concrete in the specific context of substitute teaching the context of teaching being responsible for the safe keeping of children like the problem is the danger is real but unlikely that's the point they make and if it gets remote enough then you've got a tall order to justify doing away with the requirement of the fourth amendment and reasonable suspicion there is a degree of special how do you respond to while there is a risk the gravity of the harm can be extraordinary it can be life or death for a child and the parent just turn that child over to the school for safe keeping but the risk is small in the sense of probabilities but the harm can be enormous we don't accept that the risk is small except that there is not data showing that this has happened we we point but don't you think that's relevant that there is no historical to suggest a problem with stoned or drunk teachers walking into palm beach county over the last one year two years five years ten years twenty years isn't that relevant we don't think so because we point the court to von rab and we do so with the understanding that the supreme court later told us that that was not right but funny rob is different they are talking about customs officials who are armed with firearms involved in drug interests interception work we all agree schools are absent evidence of a drug problem even absent evidence that drug impaired employees have caused the feared harm you can look at the context and admittedly with a degree of speculation you can recognize an obvious risk in the context and so when the risk is obvious from the context if it impaired customs official would obviously perhaps fail to intercept drugs coming into the country or might use a firearm then you can conclude that there is a valid government interest in installing a prophylactic testing regime without offending the fourth amendment which meant the same is true in schools because the context or the concrete danger is a parent and obvious let me ask a question did slightly differently does a teacher or an applicant for a job in a school have a more diminished interest or privacy we think it and maybe someone else in a different form and if the answer is yes why the answer is yes for at least one reason the nature of the work itself should signal to somebody seeking to hold the job his or her fitness and judgment is paramount and he or she should expect potentially physical or bodily inquiry into his or her ability to discharge those responsibilities the second point which we did not brief in an attempt to be faithful to how we read this court's precedent in two thousand and thirteen scott decision with respect to physical or bodily privacy being the inquiry is whether the industry is closely regulated in your honor asked about that and we would submit that certainly public schools i don't think my colleague would dispute this are heavily regulated there are regulations in place legal regulations in place to provide that schools have to be safe and that makes it clear that public schools are regulated for safety and so potentially for that reason as well and again we only relied on the first reason in our submissions to the district court of this court following up the the decision and scott but that second point is true here as well to the extent it is relevant but if you rely on heavy regulation then with this president from us that you're seeing also apply to nursing homes anybody working in a nursing home can be required to give such tests and and  other people that you know that have any potential supervisory responsibility over people that might be a little less capable of taking care of themselves such as schoolchildren i mean how far does the in those cases the testing was of the student not of the teacher and they were saying that a student who is don't it seems to me that that is student who is stone has a significantly greater risk of destructive behavior we all know that the control area of the human brain doesn't develop very well until after adolescence and we also know the studies show that  drug use is far more dangerous and destructive for adolescents and younger than it is for mature adults so it seems to me that it's not green martians that we're worrying about but it is certainly a significant step forward to say that because students can be tested given their normal unpredictability and imposing this anyhow and saying that's direct president the supreme court would accept about teachers being tested do you agree with that i'm not i'm not saying that you wouldn't say that it shouldn't be so extended they do agree that it would be a significant extension in our case and that's why it's important to rely on it for the specific purpose we're doing with today which is that the court has articulated in those cases that the school context places a hefty weight on the side of the on the school systems school board side of this inquiry and that's that's what we use as those cases for and of course the inquiry is whether the need a substantial enough to except in the rare instance in which it's practical and financially possible for them to do that homeschooling are required to entrust their children to these people but law and they they can be punished and sent to jail if they don't do so absolutely your honor and that is why the school context is so critical because that means that the school board which is imposed with that duty and responsible for taking care of those children has government to conduct suspicious lives drug testing drug abuse and on the most serious problems confronting our society today it would make little sense to require a school district to wait for a substantial portion of his students to begin using drugs before it was allowed to institute a drug testing program designed to deter drug use would does it make any sense to require a school system to wait until i child has been harmed or perhaps killed as a result of a substitute teacher being on drugs or alcohol before allowing that school system to institute such a program as to it's a simple yes or no it's not simple yes or no but it's a yes but are there no both two questions that i promise to get to both of them well how about get into him right now and then op promise you you can add your qualifications let's fight with is it appropriate for the district to wait is that your question right until there's been harm to the child because of drug or alcohol abuse by the teacher it's not the standard your honor no no i'm asking well it's can we require the school system to wait until a child is harmed because of drug use or alcohol abuse by a teacher before the school system can do this your honor it doesn't have a easy yes or no i can't what i mean a hard yes or no can and then then my answer would be under the under the case like yes ok that's fine and i appreciate the question because the chief chief justice rehnquist in chandler asked that very question he said do we have to wait until there is some you know drug addled politician  to make some to make some crazy to say answer should have been how could we ever tell the difference i mean we're not talking about we're not talking about taking care of school children in the legislature no but what we are talking about is calling in the national guard in the state of emergency declaring states of emergency we're talking about signing off on clemency petitions or signing the wrong clemency put there are great everything everything john everything you just listed example and i get your and the reason that the chief asked that question is he and when the chief asked that question he was the only one who asked it because he asked that in the senate he was a one person dissent in chandler it was an eight to one decision your honor nobody else was concerned with that question what i will tell you is that it does come and i appreciated the colloquy that was going on here before the context is critical listen to it absent of very different species or character when you're talking about students falling between k and twelve or five year old kids going into school for five hours i get i have a three year answer gary different from what you're talking about and chandler isn't just the you think chandler is the same context as what we're talking about a different context ok so let's focus on this context that is perfectly fine and so if you look at a case like the canal county case in the southern district of west virginia look at which looked at this very issue in the court there too was wrestling with what is concrete what is hypothetical what is real and all these sort of words that that you were discussing with with my friend across the aisle here and you know what the court ended up doing was going to the dictionary definition and says well it's characterized by immediate experience of realities that's what the court was looking at there i want to ask the question this way why isn't it enough to fairly say that even if the probabilities are small the gravity of the hormone is awesome and in a school context that ought to be anough to do away with a requirement of probable cause for testing on the front end for someone who voluntarily chooses to say i want to and to this profession and teach and care for these children sure because the probability is just so darn low your honor and that's what the record reflects i put the harm can be so great absolutely in so you know it's like what you're really trying to do is compound the probability against the harm that come out with some kind of idea of risk that's what that's what one always does in fourth amendment cases i argued a fourth amendment case before the supreme court and you were looking at sort of the degree of the invasion versus the likelihood of finding the material or contraband there and it is always a sort of balancing if you're right and i'm asking in this precise context us with the gravity of the home can be so substantial yes even if the probability is small if you want someone who's anyway no because you always need a great american grave serious harm has to be part of the question that is in the supreme court case law what you then need to look at is well how likely is that so that has to be a given the grave serious harm correct to students who are in school because the law compels that correct you're right there and must turn them over and so what we know here is we talk about what is hypothetical right is that and this is the board's burden to carry is that there has not been a single incident one hundred eight years what we know is that the longest serving member of the employee of the board who did who was deposed said he had never ever in his career seen a teacher who was intoxicated and and do the alphabet backward but that doesn't mean they can do it as well as if it was point zero zero i understand your honor i hear that in the in the other part of the problem that you have is while it may be more evident that someone is or is not drunk from breath from glassy eyes from slurred speech the use of controlled substances is very different and it depends on the former college of the drug body metabolizes so much more quickly than others but you'd be amazed at how difficult it is to discern so you say even if you had fifteen minutes when they walk in the door they might have had a heavy night of cocaine and it would not necessarily be evident when they walked in the door you know eight hours later i understand that your honor we're not saying that everybody necessarily is the tech to during that observation what we are saying is that there is i'm suggesting to you that in many instances it's exceedingly difficult and unlikely that you last point and then i'm done which is we have not talked about the efficacy as it relates to misremembered particularly she has been granted a potentially years long time to wait before she goes in for a drug test i am not aware of a single case in the history of american jurisprudence where that has ever occurred and where that has been deemed important interest that is vindicated when the all you've got to do is go into court get an injunction and after a month or so say in africa as you're on now that i'm going to fly it's only because the board has put her in this position your honor no it's only because she got a stay away granted by the board yeah but she insisted on it so she could litigate this case which is what she's done she didn't insist on the stay your honor she she well ok thank you very much ron you're welcome next up is sigmund