could be most appropriate to try it in the oregon court where the case was filed in originally if the court concludes that that should be up to the district court but that the summary judgment on that claim should be set aside and will roll with that punch but there are genuine issues of material fact in this case whether the city manager and the city of  threaten discipline to ms ramsey required prior notice of disclosures to the city before she went outside the city and discouraged restraining or interfered with her disclosures for attempted to do so every single one of those things is a violation of the oregon public employee whistleblower and the appleby's brief and supplemental excerpt of record suggests that you know again that no reasonable juror could conclude that any of these things this written discipline required prior notice discourage restraint or interfere with is read brief some or portions of it in the read brief for example and this is underscoring by counsel for the athlete it says  and this is on page six of the read brief you can always go the next step if i didn't respond you can always go the next step or ask some outside agency to come in and look at it or go to a city councilor and my clear on my direction well he is clear on his direct he's saying that before he goes to an outside agency or a city council or she has to come to him first that is a violation of the portion of the whistleblower act which says that it is an unlawful employment practice with regard to disclosures or discussions of violation of any state law mismanagement or  to the oregon whistleblower claim  in any future situation played up was to contact the city manager first so that the city manager could leave his own investigation that is exactly what we're alleging to be a violation of your human but you know that i have to say what your complaint complains about is not that but your complaint complains about is that as a result of her having raised about the cheese and the garbage in the dumpster and taking the bicycles hudler decides to retaliate against that's if that's part of your claim and also any damages for that you may well have to never get damages from retaliate if you can get there exactly and we think that whether we get there should be up to a jury with this kind of evidence i mean i would suggest that you i'm sure this panel and all members of this court see a lot of claims under both federal and various kinds of state statutory in common law involving employees whether public or private very seldom that the conduct and the motivation of the defendant is shown in a tape recorded statement but we've got that and we believe that a jury can find it compelling ok i want to ask you what  establish any fact with beyond genuine dispute if the case was tried there are explanations that the jury will hear for why that happened but i certainly don't think that the fact that the husband was a member of the city council and is not talk really before this court as part of the summary judgment record and the actual record upon which the court should be relying in determining whether there is  that she wished the court to consider she did neither of those things in an abundance of caution defendants did respond to the fact that the plaintiff had set out in her summary her in her opposition memo denying admitting etc and our position with the trial court was under the rules these are the only facts that you should be considering the trial court did not didn't deny well you didn't have the killer knew from some independent source you simply don't mention that one way or the other as to your second point that the plaintiff had an affirmative obligation to put it forward that's a that's a reasonable point statement and yes i would have heard that the court had been more clear it would have made everyone's job of little easier but what i would suggest is that what the district court with saying is that there was no evidence properly her from going elsewhere before going to do all these things that mr parsons raised this morning that was never part of the case before the trial court this was always about the change in her job and eventual elimination of her position in retaliation for those specific this voters and the problem that plaintiffs had with that is that the restructuring of the municipal police and court systems that led to the eventual elimination of her job began many many months before the disclosures that she those came in retaliation for in addition many of the changes that occurred were brought about by people other than mr kugler people not working in combination with mr couper the ultimate we spend time on a tape recorded conversation in the read we primarily because we are very concerned about how the way it was presented in plaintiff's opening briefly felt that it was not being given an accurate of that conversation and the contents of that conversation and whatever inferences can be drawn from that conversation but the fact of the matter is it's really a non issue in terms of what plaintiff was claiming and in terms of what that afterwards things happened to her job eventually the job elimination but the problem is is it's not there is a direct line starting in october two thousand and actually the year is the sequence of events that led to her job this is the person that made the decision she fell or made this decision jones harmsen made this decision the city council made this decision the plaintiff's responsibility and duty was to come back with specific evidence to demonstrate a genuine dispute as to fact as to those issues and if her position is that kugler orchestrated all of this she needed evidence that cooper orchestrated all of  you it is it is from a great lover of knowledge and apparently there are not a lot of greeks implement so they don't pronounce it that way but it was me so i the first college in oregon believe it was called