for her to find that he touched her inappropriately that he needed some hold her he had a dream about her naked all these things would have to be intentionally intentional violation of her right to be free from gender discrimination in the workplace i don't know how more clearly you could prove that someone knew of that right other than than you know being and w an instruction to that effect that this wasn't a matter yes i mean originally not in the instruction about him being a judge but this was in the context of arguing whether we got  are not giving proper instructions well the judge didn't give any instruction on punitive damages because he took it from the jury before we got the instruction so i'm because that would have been one of the final instructions and this conference took judge where there is the defense really didn't put up any legitimate argument that he shouldn't been liable for those economic damages the jury was specifically given a question in the and so with that precise question they then awarded fifty eight thousand four hundred twenty seven dollars so the better question is who's to pay right you know she lost income definitely because she lost her job right and this really isn't the question as far as getting the judge into a question of liability whether or not his actions caused her loss you under that question was specific t judge so the sixty eight thousand dollars was awarded against a judge right and so is the verdict form and i think is that in the record at right one sixty two to one seventy two was the sort of thing that judges have to be the ones to decide this is was to too distant too contingent because the jury would have to find that because of his harassment of her that led to a controversy about the court and the court was eliminated and that's why she foreseeability to some extent may be a fact question but it's some point the courts step in and say that's just too remote and this strikes me as pretty remote well i mean it there's a factual causation this is found out you know or we're all in trouble so i think he did for see the implosion that happened not we'll look at why the court was ultimately closed and who made that decision and why that as you know they got rid of the the companies the sipa lost their jobs in in order to deal with the fall out of that because he wouldn't take responsibility don't you have a lot of evidence in this record that the kind of commissioners were looking and salary to him so they were looking at it from a budgetary point of view is that this court making money and if we keep it going how much will it cost that's that's to argue that the defendant made your honor the jury found i and you know the jury and in the first case didn't believe that and there was a lot of reasons not to believe that including the change you know the changing stories the fact that they had said that that the budgets w reflect the the court holding when it didn't and then there was all these things that they had said that then we were confronted with the documents that that showed that they weren't telling the truth and then they had to change their story you know and i'm going to reserve  the minutes any studies before this sexual misconduct that was alleged occurred about closing the courthouse well according to the county yes but doubt that actually will be addressed by my my ordinarily intentional tortious conduct is subject to immediate damages kolstad said no that's not enough you have to intend to violate the federal law that's right and by gosh surely he knew that harassing sexually harassing the employee violated the federal law well it has to be more than intentional harassment for  if he knew that then why did we have the sterett case the stair case was the case that made the decision that you could have equal protection violation with respect to sexual harassment why did the court if all judges know they have to decide that case in one thousand nine hundred ninety there was no evidence presented that this justice court judge had the training or education over and above that that was he did was have an attraction to her so it wasn't malicious but we're talking about something rather different we're talking about an intentional violation of the wall and in the what makes this different is you can have an intentional wireless and you can commit acts that violate the law without intending to violate the law because you didn't realize this was a violation of the title seven or whatever was intended to discriminate now that brings me to one of the cross appeal issues which is the poll and whether or not it was properly given to the jury prior to any additional  that the prior panel found that it was relevant i would think that the law of the case were not totally down by fire but boy we are pretty deferential i don't believe i twirling things off of her self and some posters and things so is that a legitimate you know would never be a legitimate concern obviously for of physical justice court what happened in two thousand and six was that ogden city which formally took many of their cases to the weaver can do justice court open their own justice court and so a lot of the money was being diverted newspaper article at that point in time the county commissioners all testified that they disappear at least an article i think if you take a close look at the article there surely nothing critical about the county as a whole as a matter of fact it more or less talks about what  to find the requisite intent by the individual county commissioners and was there any of that evidence that didn't appear at the trial and again i think i just answered that question first was any of that evidence not in fact presented to the jury i think that's true i think i think there's absolutely nothing of additional evidence no one would have believed that i guess you're saying that because ordinarily if there's enough evidence for a jury to find something we don't care about other evidence that might contradict it and you seem to be arguing that we should care discussed in the record at page sixty five and thereabouts i want to be clear that was taken from the jury before they got a chance to decide it on the day goes on the evening before closing arguments with exclusions that harms all your time at the evident reach out right right problem was never said this if you're ruling was wrong it's just that there were so many more rulings against these and against them and that could be perfectly sort of list at the end identified the various objections that were made and sustained but i did several of them that i thought were important and obviously incorrect to focus on b i mean because there are so many  failure to rehire and this is a direct quote the the there was a defense counsel said objection your honor the judge said sustained without giving me a chance to respond and then we took a lunch break so thank you thank you cases submitted