his sister is brother and his girlfriend and there was some kind of a ruckus to develop in the bar and the four of them the side of that they needed to get out of the bar and as they were leaving the carty  that racial epithets had been hurled there it's actually been a fight where right somebody would actually had blood all over his body in clothing subsequently a like that of the nature mr franks as it turns out had been stabbed and went to the e r of the local hospital this is no room in the office who shows up and he sees this he got me he got in the car where he was in the car and he went directly to the hospital leo who he didn't hang around if the officer told him to no i don't and i think the record to be fair i don't think the officer ever ever had an opportunity to tell frank of pounding his fist on the windshield out three other remaining charges were dismissed with prejudice but now that's not in the record that's what my client and his criminal defense counsel is telling me bar asked frank some questions and there's a huge dispute between the defendants and mr hess what we can can happened as is that mr franks provided a description that matched my throughout the record and in the administrative disciplinary proceedings and the statement is made that mr franks a dandified my client and one point mr tressler want to defend is used the phrase conclusively identified my client and now how that how they can and take a description of my client and convert that into not only an indemnification but a conclusive and at the other individuals none of the people that the op assert interviewed in the bar in any way and then a fight pass or anybody else in his party like it's a is i understand it's a fairly large  institution far and they were it completely different parts of the bar all they had learned was that there was something going on and then and i think the record indicates that they've been told somebody and it goes on and they were getting out of there and so the coincidence is as well they're leaving the door that's when francis leaving at the same time and they felt like they had been assaulted so my client was not and involved with a student discipline his reading place reports received this police report and besides that he's going to recommend to defend the germ or shine the dean that my client should very significant to my client because he was at the end of the semester he was in his final exams he was not allowed to take to his final exams his and his grade was hurt significantly in one of the courses and he took challenge the interim suspension but i thought it was clear from the university's action that a hearing was available within a very short period of time forty eight hours two days so right he did not do that so i mean i know i've only due process problem there i frankly don't see anything much worse than an ex party t r o they were issuing judge chose to be available basically of the cook county and if you look at the record the timing of the examinations if he had appealed against them or sinus not in any way clear that he could have been reinstated in time to take those examinations where he could have raised  right at the time instead of cursing out mr trishna right he'd like to be heard that way it what what what if you look from the context of the depositions mr translator was there to serve the interim suspension he wasn't there to discuss the case further there was no nothing that could be done at that time mr tristram made it very clear that there was nothing that could be done at that time question was wait was asked can i take my final examinations mr chrisler said we don't do that and when i asked mr trist lawyer in his deposition i says well can't even your student conduct permits for medicating circumstances it was right there in the student conduct  was a possibility because a student conduct code permits that but that was that is in his words that's not something we do that's a quote out of his deposition and so when we think that due process is implicated here there is some kind of burden it seems to me that's on the on the defendant school as they themselves raise in their brief frequently we have a balancing proposition when it comes to due process of the guys persons lopez case that was a suspension case a ten day suspension case in the gosho or it made it very clear that when you have expulsions in question then the balancing needs to be much stronger in favor of the suit i want to make one more point because i think if i can prevail on this point it's going to go a long way from winning the appeal in the williams versus women or case this court basically had before it the situation where some of us black students at s a you had been involved in hazing in the bulk of the opinion involved race discrimination but at the very last paragraph  last time i was here i blew and i had nor these lights here i blew by all of my rebuttal time and i regretted it so if there aren't any other questions from the court i'd like to see the question is where do we find you describe what you think are the looked ok we attach the letters from s a you indicating that the provisions in the disciplinary code of my client allegedly violate and so it's clear that we were challenging dunham my name is tom wilson i represent the board of trustees in the three individual named administrator so i'd like to address the constitutional issues in this case and in very clearly this court has spoken many times we're not at all  ting on a clean slate that in a case where you have a student who is right there is an undergraduate or graduate student whatever status is for a public university and i want to like he has the burden of establishing a claim of entitlement in order to give property interests it does not just exist inherently the court has said that in charleston and beside our winner in this case mr has never did that we challenged on two motions to dismiss the rolls on a motion basis whatsoever to tell me what he relied on or where the contract was that gave him this right to due process with regard to the claims of violation of due process the university can impose an inter when they have reason to believe that an individual student possesses an immediate threat to other individuals on the campus now obviously the university needs to act quickly there's never been to my knowledge a case from the circuit saying that the student has a pre terminations or a pre deprivation right to a hearing on an interim suspension in the med lock a cycle we've made that very clear as well in this case the university was confronted that situation where they learned on december explained the right to a fight hearing with the dean within forty eight hours to mr house one of the plain to say about the question what he wanted to play his testimony about tricyclics point is there any disagreement there i don't believe this argument about there were other alternatives that could have been proposed that was something that even if you had due process right mr has clearly forfeited in not asking for the immediate post suspension hearing or t alternatives to the universe with regard to the claim in this case that the rights to due process were violated because of a feisty hearing officer and that's what the plan to spend t prior to the hearing when he knew who the hearing officer was going to be he never raised it before the hearing at the hearing or after the hearing in his appeal and if you think about it from a practical point of view for a university if all  in has to do is call the hearing officer names and accuse them of having prejudge the case and used profanity the hearing officer has really two choices they can step aside and let another hearing officer take over who's likely going to be subject to the same accusations and we never have a hearing or they can believing that they are unbiased proceed with the hearing and then be subject to under the plaintiff's theory a jury trial in federal court where they're personally going to be held responsible potentially for damages it's no different then a judge that the mere statements to a court that accuse the judge of bias or prejudice is not enough by itself his job he's done it one hundred fifty to two hundred times people are upset when you confront them at the police station in the middle of the night they're unhappy their families aren't happy there's nothing in the record to create a genuine issue material fact finally with regard to the claim of substantive due process we can debate the merits as to whether mr hess was guilty or not of the status there's evidence on both sides at that point but that's not the franks the victim was stabbed multiple times and fled to get to the hospital mr cast was observed by the first arriving police officer chasing mr has across the parking lot and pounding on the driver side window and did not stop until taken to the ground by the officer number three mister franks immediately identified by description and clothing and individual who matched mr hesse's description such that heston self testified that you grease it closely matched his description that evening and the officers were immediately able to identify who it was mr frank was talking about collectively that is some evidence such that the decision of mr trist there was certainly not arbitrary or shocking to the conscience and good point of testified at that hearing he was given the opportunity he was represented by counsel who was there as a consultant and he asserted his fifth amendment right not to talk about what happened that evening at the bar so the testimony that mr has brought forth later about he personally knew the victim mr franks raising the question of why wasn't it done five by name that was never brought out even though he had the opportunity to do so at the hearing how did mr trist or find out about these charges against point if i don't know that that's necessarily the record but the answer of your honor to the question has the university has a working relationship with the local police departments and when the police departments have east an individual who they either knew was a student or believed based on age is potentially a student if you are with a matter such as this where there's a violent don't they send us the place reports before if you look at the exhibits to the second amended complaint it becomes very clear that they are discharging my client through disciplinary proceedings i think the very last paragraph of williams versus when we're makes clear that the student if he identifies the basis of his complaint in the complaint that there is a due process right i think the defense would have you believe that there is no  possibility for a property interests if it's a secondary education case and i don't think that's true i would agree if the all the basis for asserting bias against mr tressler was affected my clients were very annoyed at him that that in of itself does not raise a bias concern on his part as he testified he's he's been cussed out many times before but that's not what we're complaining about number one is i took the dean's deposition when i asked about the conversation between mr tressler in the dean about where mr trist were set and it's quoted the entire  this case he was a judge because he's the one that referent referee recommended the sanction he was the on a jury because he found the facts the only facts he had was a bad police report they admit the university had the burden of proof in the universe you didn't the deuce and the witnesses we brought the right the police officer that arrested my client and he concluded that he didn't think my client was implicated in the in the stab it is been held by numerous courts that if you are right relying on a confidential informant who makes an actual identification that's a seventy due process violation and tell you can determine the