speaking as a private citizen when he was saying we need to be transparent we need to share all of the information and there we are using with everyone else when  abrupt than the panel here before right now you're not answering the questions with a yes or a no you're just rambling on to something else so we know we've read the briefs and looked at the record that mr olson who was an employee of the state that's running these was there testifying because he was an employee of the state law that's correct right it i don't think so you know they could subpoena me off the street and i run by the lab and pick up the reports and then i go to court and i testify about what it means no one's doing that that's ridiculous the only reason these people are testifying is because they work in this lab they had percipient knowledge and they are providing their expertise that they're paid for by the state punishable punished by the court by contempt of court if mr also refused to answer questions against the courts directed you would be punished by the court not by a supervisor and of mr olson lied on the stand as he was directed to do by  something that happened at their place of employment i think an employment dispute but it really didn't have anything to do with your actual work i mean it's not different from the person whose duty it is to represent the lab and go and present the labs finding just release all of the batch but you can see that my personal opinion is that they should do that i've been told we don't have the ability to do that whatever he should have been more comprehensive rather then what it sounds like what he did was to say oh no i'm i'm falling on my sword here to tell you the truth it's also not good because it's bad for my career to say these things and the state could reasonably say you're there to testify about our lab results the integrity of our lab results is critically important to us you're not there for personal advocacy outside of him speaking with the attorney outside of the scope of that courtroom that's a separate question that's a causation question if you must terminated constructively for doing that or for  rebel the point that i decided to start with which is that this really is a matter of concern my client is interesting that does matter because it's interested in every government employee when they get on the stand telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth government policy and i'm not saying that that's true in this case but if there is a government policy best designed to hide corruption would your answer be the same if if if there's  a policy that precludes public employees from testifying about corruption that they see in the workplace would that be unprotected speech because that might be that's certainly a different case than we have here a different case but i'm asking you if there's a policy and agency that prohibits employees from deviating from that policy and deviation from i can't imagine that all the time i mean if most of the corruption that we see if exposed by people who are on the inside and this is the difficulty i have with this case is that we want government employees to not arguing we're not suggesting that the court should say every time there's an employee whose job involves testimony that that he you know that he the government has an interest in what he says there are times p s policy those records were not relevant to the analysis that's why they were automatically produced in the st place why would why would those records irrelevant if they were part of the testing checks out then the sample is valid that's without reference to the unrelated case samples because you already have i think the largest and the lack of transparency why the agency is fighting so har there wasn't scientifically except that the other the unrelated case and who's had any effect on the on the subject case but the other point is though that information other than there was a standard disclosure made a dui cases that included the hell writers who controls it including the subject samples from the particular case now if somebody wanted to come in and inspect the other samples they could do so but the but each case stands on its own in the records were separately maintaining some of the department didn't prevent that or didn't block it they just didn't automatically routinely i don't i don't have a great has room for that but what i can say is that they i think it is common practice to conduct tests you know to to measure blood alcohol content  some other part of the state so there are i think there is some expectation that each case will be separately handled by the agencies who send them to d performance work analytical work is testimony that can only be accomplished through employees like mr olson and so where is here there is a strong compelling employer  that's what was being left out that was that was creating a misleading picture of oh how the analysis was supposed to be done question of whether an employee's testimony would be protected when given as part of the employee's job duties and that's the case we have here so by leaving that question hope that would really be harmful to state government employers in situations like this because the basically the employer would be without recourse to address