the first thing that raised the question in my mind is i was looking through the speech and i didn't see what i saw instead was conduct that didn't look like expressive conduct it wasn't like when i point and i'm just using a gesture to substitute for word secondly when brown confronted him about it afterwards saying look you did not follow my directive and i don't appreciate that when he was very irate and my client stepped up and said look you know i will i will follow your direct is that i'm not going to do anything illegal or unethical so there or was the intention you know intention was expressed and also the  what i'm looking for is for him to go to the city council or go to the newspapers and save my boss told me to do something on ethical to influence the committee improperly and i have refused to do it and then the whistleblower  but that's because when he went to the committee get any legal authority that would say that he is fighting the regulation is without telling anybody there was a request for it what he thought was well i think that's the case that i cited in my reply brief where the judicial system was instructed by the judge to not to give training to people who have not worked on his campaign and she in fact signed up to individuals for training that did not participate in his campaign and objection to that directive she went against the directive by not  interpretation would give free speech protection if the boss tells the employee take this construction with your goals and put them in the trunk of my car tricked them home to work on something in my backyard and the employee realizes my boss is an investor i can't do that and so what he does is he just does nothing and he would say that's protected speech and if the boss fires him for doing nothing gloves are records and put them into the trunk of the car i was under the impression that he  either generally oppositional troublesome personality and insubordinate individual all kinds of possibilities other than that and that there be something expressive it i know if you watch a movie and you're trying to pick out expressive conduct like cool hand luke the actor has to ham it up a little your points and that but you have to look at the totality of the circumstances here we have and you know my client refusing to do what he was directed to do thereafter after his final thing at the totality and frankly the best i can people at the workplace the boss told me to do thus and such you don't say thinks it's improper or that they ought to go to the boss to that they ought to figure out how to deal with this that they ought to go to the city council nothing it looks like he's not doing what he's told me sneaking around behind the boss he's doing a lot of i don't gossiping and he's not performing any whistle blowing it off  he in fact dan brown gets upset about the what happened and my client says look i'm not going to do anything illegal or unethical in right there he's saying i think that what you told  the his demotion there was and threats of terminations that was micromanagement but there were other things right i mean there were if he was told to send this payment back to reject the payment he did he did  your art is your answer my questions well you just have to add everything up and then concludes that that was obviously why they fired him because i think the complete reversal and how they treated my client after his exemplary employment record we have great performance evaluations including one that was written by mr brown in june of two thousand after all of this comes down with the e there's a variety of in accurate facts and lots of allegations that had never been brought up before with my clients including a communication issue that was in direct act to be speech it has to have been understood by someone other than the app store as speech and in this case there's no evidence that anyone other than i do my job but with some legal implying and what you asked me to do was illegal that's why i did it in the context of that conversation i would argue now that that in france isn't there because know i would not concede that it's protected speech because i think that whether or not he communicates to his boss that he thinks he was asked to do something illegal or an unethical it does not meet the public interest and that i can do to influence the committee and the response are you know something that when i read that piece of work to me like he was kind of dancing around making his boss think that he was trying to please as far as making the other employees think that he was hallway and i had a question about how much information or what i could do to influence them them referring to the committee and it was dan's preference not to word this contract hofmann so what he expressed to them according to his deposition testimony that that dan brown had a preference and then and further down the page the question i asked is do you recall if you told them specifically that sam brown had ordered memorandum in response to a motion for summary judgment he again cannot say with any more certainty whether he did or he did not indicate to those two employees that he felt ethical is that an ethical is it an ethical to have a preference for a particular vendor absolutely not i mean if the boss of the department says i think common should or should not get th received too many other contracts from all known the county and that there was a perception that they were always the winners and therefore they needed i think there was a perception that they didn't have to work very hard to be the winner because of their past history with the county yes and i think that not improper under the organ contract law now they are in contract law isn't part of the evidence in this case but a public contract lining that in fact now there has to be a selection process there has to be an open really know well there is evidence in the records that that his the motivation he articulated was that he felt hofmann was getting preferential treatment in the review disagree that hofmann was in fact getting more you know possibly getting too many contracts and this kind of like with our mark having all the national parks concessions and was the picture i was getting that nobody ever said was any bribery or corruption or had a brother in law who is competing with often or anything like that there is nothing if there is no allegation of any of that in that case the record if we don't have a record about it and suing this this exploration with this if i can't find anything in the record that actually shows some sort of corrupt purpose and what brown was saying it gives me further difficulty in upset that he wasn't going to do what he wanted him to do there is nothing in the speech of a public nature of public interest it's simply one employee telling his supervisor that he's going to do his job and support the supervisor within the bounds of ethics that that's all it is and that is not a matter of public concern if you turn he had many problems with mr brown's managerial style and that there was quite a bit of people in that apartment during the year plus that mr brown was managing prior to th through sixty nine six thirty three six forty two and ninety eight maybe