believe their the company that declared bankruptcy filed for bankruptcy that company or its member i believe that company care that's my understanding and i as we discussed earlier will go forward a letter to the court re itself i think it's a little bit more clear i piloted us but the only other thing if i may just respond briefly i am not familiar with anything in the record regarding francis service on franc and it was discussed earlier to my knowledge it's not in the appendix and i don't know if it does exist at all in the record i mean houses representations of this conversation the high risk his declarations there decorations councils decoration due process distinction i just like to point out in general when a point of chooses the jurisdiction to file a complaint he loads up the complaint with all kinds of allegations in the complaint ultimately courts recognize the supreme court has recognized the got decision we discussed earlier that he should retain the proof the burden of proving jurisdiction by preponderance and it's our contention that if we allow it in order to have that done you have to engage it was he made out the allegations and nobody has yet rebutted them i mean he's going to feel like this is like a rope a dope defense you want to you know not respond and try to get the default judgment you know vacated and then this is all in the back of what he would much rather have dealt with this way back when right but under third circuit precedent and all the circuits they all agreed that you could wait for it before judge it i'm not saying that happened here but i'm just responding to that argument you are entitled to wait for the default judgment and then challenge it on the lack of jurisdiction i'm just explaining that but but you may have if we decide to go that way the burden of showing that that in fact there is lack of personal jurisdiction  first fact that's really sticks out in the case is that her advisor professor emerita came to her and said you are getting railroad you're being treated differently and the woman who's leading the charge has a racial bias we're the word railroaded in and i believe in the appendix she calls it a witch hunt so that's what i'm referring to i didn't so a different term and maybe which one's better i think it might be so this is not something that my client six months later thought wow i must have been discriminated against this was while the process was on go away and obviously her problems were related to her participation in a practical planck's you can train to be a psychologist the clinic was intended to give her hands on experience in testing people for various disabilities in this case it was a learning disability or e t h day what's your evidence that hirschi made the remark that here perception and my evidence is some comment about the your client could possibly find work within the indian community or something but that was actually quite a number of weeks before all of this took place to watch our then you have some obviously concerns about the length of time it takes to treat patients and ultimately results in a the due process hearing that you may have some issues with respect to as to how it was able but  even seems here that it is there's not a whole lot that you have other than you no one can argue straight comments i don't counsel discern what that what that they think that is but doesn't seem to be a whole lot here to base a much of a case on well your honor i respectfully disagree with you i mean these cases are difficult and we have an account that was framework because evidence is extraordinarily difficult to come by of this for me for in fact you must infer  and i guess we're talking march and did the testing but then it goes on and she really doesn't contact a supervisor until july do you have comparative or is where people engaged in that conduct and then you know there were no ramifications i will answer that question your honor but i bet you that those are not the facts of the case you just said that she waited until july to seek supervision that is certainly client certifications specifically paragraph five of her serve occasion she set forth that i know all these other students in my class there was only seven other students how many they asked ok they'd they were tardy  getting their work done but in terms of the supervision that's required under the handbook did they have the similar lack of pursuit of supervision as she did yes i mean the records and sell show that a certain day with regard to patient want a patient to their very different situations exactly patient one i think you are so focused on the fact that the testing was done and then there was a lag of time between completing the report and returning it the records with regard to the comparable show the same lack of time even greater lives allegation of that my client felt sick supervision with regard to patient one well said she failed to handle the situation appropriately that she handled the situation badly which to me says she knew she was having a difficult pregnancy she she had done the testing she did not return phone call and she didn't come to tell her supervisor of this problem he thought that since a lot of patients drop out that that's what answering that that like we showed the other students also wrote the rule concerning the deadline and we're just talking of the prima facia case here i know i mean she shall issue issue differently with regard to patient once the allegations levied against her with regard to patient one which was simply your weight that was it then in the course of patient one being remedied dr fiercely came forth unsaid i just found out about patient two i can't believe she never told me about this i didn't know found that there is substantial evidence in the record to suggest that was a misrepresentation i mean after all she assigned herself a supervisor she was in a class on a weekly basis with this matter all they discussed were the testing cases seems highly unlikely that pile never brought this up to her and piles where's the shit so that allegation is cited by f to you as the primary reason why pile was punished that's in the record the complaint here that she should not have been put on a meal plan and she resigned from the program your honor i think the issue in the case ultimately if we ever reached it would have been constructive terminations because if you get into the specific conditions that f you want to impose on her it was don't take any other classes except go repeat the same course with archer city whom you were just told by your advisor is a racist or maybe a racist or maybe motivated by race and has it out for you who could really tolerate those conditions that seem like a recipe for disaster so she need to get her exams in fact by achieving a master's from f t based on the worksheet already i actually hearing where she could have been represented by someone although the plan says other than an attorney to present witnesses and actually cross examine them because if that if that happened dr tears he would have had to sit there and say i never even knew about opportunity you assign patient once yourself you're in the class with the whole time you're saying this is the primary reason why you are imposing severe sanctions it's just not fair the others doesn't support your version of events but that never happened putative psychologist is a threat to public safety is defamation per se has she held the license well you know it has to be factual clearly that's a statement of opinion is it not  ant to either treatment with psychologists about home i've heard such a thing from a dino university so you're saying the district court should have addressed the issue of whether it was factual or an opinion it never came up and take issue with the district court's ruling regarding the statement that it was another you know another theory of liability i can't explain that it certainly wasn't it was just use months removed from the challenge of course of conduct that's at issue here which is when the faculty met with mr maida after she failed to provide adequate patient care on a whole variety of levels not simply in terms of being  did it is unclear when it was made it was not attributed to her in the context of a faculty meeting and here but that's what a jury should size up that a jury should also size up you know gives you an emeritus professor that there witch going on here well i think her honor what should go to the jury is if there are genuine issues of material fact and here it is our position that there are no genuine issues of material fact meaning facts that would lead to a different outcome than what the district court found here well tears he said she didn't say it and gives so she did that's pretty material fact well you just gives you  emails that there's something going on here you know she's a really really good student we have a problem with you know minorities and you know she's not being treated fairly you know there's there's a lot of i'm not saying that there aren't some factual disputes what i'm saying is that when you look at what is undisputed and what what plaintiffs for the burden of proving there was no genuine issue of material fact where the plaintiffs even if you give her all benefit of the doubt would have met apartment they should case of discrimination let's say that there let's say that we conceded the statement that is attributed to dr tears there is no evidence contrary to judgment level you don't know you know if there's sufficient totality circumstantial evidence of discrimination there's cases that say you know it doesn't half strictly satisfy the burden shifting which ambrose comment earlier i think that the two comments that are pulled out of context and we would assert characterize but even if we took them for what they are i think that they fairly fall within the rubric of stray remarks and if you look at the undisputed facts with regard to the failure of the plane to render adequate patient care i think that it is undisputed that she did not meet the professional an academic standards that were clearly laid out that she was required to needs and that she has unfortunately refused to take responsibility for her inadequate patient care and instead has sought to blame her pregnancy her supervisors other students in the course she has not once demonstrated responsibility for any other students in the course no no no she will she always looks to couch what she has done as somehow being not her fault and you either believe that but then we have gives has a very high view of her and just some extent the situation of her not you're doing her work because of a difficult pregnancy and not coming forth with that explanation right up front because of religious reasons one of feeds into the the the cultural situation we have here that perhaps university needs to be more  sensitive to me not there is no doubt that that you know that i would have you would have contacted the professor other people you know eighty percent of the population might have contacted him but jury might look at this differently your honor i would just emphasize that this is a student who was in a rigorous ph d level graduate program that she has held along with the rest of the students in the program to a high level of expectation hi professional standards she was in her second year if she graduated from this program that she had decided to simply retake the practicum and demonstrate that she was competent and able to accomplish what was required of her she would have been out in the real world as a licensed psychologist to tackle many difficult issues with or with her patients and at the same time juggling real life responsibility the question of rigorousness here could rise and fall on tears supervision that was there you know a lot of things were in him books that don't grin that she was you know she didn't do things in a timely manner but then again if there's a witch hunt then you never know there is simply no evidence in the record and my adversary would be able to point to any documentation that there were other students in the program that had a comparable situation where they were delayed in rendering  for example might be interesting to have gibbs testified as to why this was so conserved the there might be a witch of the people were taking into account of this person's the culture that she was from the fact that she was pregnant and i would emphasize here that when miss nita was presented with the facts of the inadequate patient care that she rendered she did not provide a response and that meeting took place in july of two thousand he was using his or her him he she may be a passive person who doesn't doesn't respond well to those things i mean i've had situations where you you meet with people and and they don't they don't readily have a response and i don't want to make of that your honor i can make an analogy ok as a clinical student she was operating under the licenses of licensed psychologist and their professional standards that the students and those licensed psychologists are held to in order for her to be able to operate in that manner under the statute that governs that program i can think of a similar program that fine caved in when i was a law student and i was not a practicing lawyer yet but i had the opportunity to appear in court because i operated under a supervising attorney who was admitted to the our if i did not consult with that supervising attorney and then just appeared in court or decided to miss a deadline because i culturally was passive or i somehow was having a difficult time but just hid under the carpet and didn't i just decided to not raise the issue with it but i think we need to look at the objective facts and the standards that this look this student took an ethics course that focused pacifically on the standards that are put the ball to her program she had a three point six g p a in the academic portion classroom portion of the program the clinical component this just isn't the liberal she was in a ph d program to be a clinical psychologist the clinical program was as academic and as important to what she was being taught and trained to do if she had stayed in the program and graduated and this is the question of the hearing that she should should she have been afforded hearing so i'm going to make the distinction between what mr like calls the student bill of rights what he's actually referring to is the student code of conduct which is a different set of processes that applies to disciplinary action in this case this was a joint faculty decision this was not d joint decision that they thought the remediate program it remediation was not only failure but it was necessary to ensure that she would be able to demonstrate that she could render adequate patient care so  concerns were with her failure to render adequate care and as a matter of fact at least now all of that it did it did where's that in the record i can provide the court with i thought you know but it was very brief just concern is how you responded to a demanding situation but none of them really really did the pen but requires pretty specific and clear allegations that i don't think and also provide information  specifying the source of the information with the student being for an opportunity and sought with the faculty members involved you can get that to us later wished i'm just not sure that the handbook was complied with maybe and well your honor there was a requirement that something go out in writing and then and that the student be notified of what she was concerned with the right one robs identifies we present ready faculty members providing significant information relevant to the student's evaluation provide such evaluation completely as possible so specifying a source student should be afforded an opportunity to consult with the faculty members involved that the e mail that i can put my hands on now i can alert the court if there's another one but there was an e mail that went out on july ninth which is that eight hundred fifty that i recognize is not is not particularly lengthy right but then there was a follow failure to render patient care or failure to maintain communication with the patients so that the patient understood where he stood as the record demonstrates this was initially a law student who was coming to the clinic to seek an assessment of a potential burning disability she was looking to take the elevator and she needed to have it done by may she heard nothing until late may early june until she called then when that faculty met then miss  realized the hot water i guess that she was in and that and the fact that the faculty realized that she hadn't been following through on what it was that she was supposed to be doing and in fact in an e mail that posted at the meeting that was held on july fifteenth that was the very first time that miss nita raised the request to dr tears you that she provides and supervision with regard to patient to what she said that you know in july twenty fourth because she was clearly on notice that her conduct was going to be scrutinized and th it was going to be held to the standards that were set forth in the various guidelines and protocol has never got anything in writing with respect to the whole tears the patient to aspect that she the e mails here proceeded so they did proceed when i high and when they i had to hear of the meeting later she really hadn't been given written information that was provided in the meeting that she had at the faculty members that she clearly was on notice and that she she sent out a notice i'm skew to provide supervision with regard to patient two i would also say that there were enough the pros do that the faculty meeting that took place in august and then there was additional e mails where doctor gives us again heard in support of miss that remediation was set on in early september and under that probably a procedure is that actually government academic decision here is what miss made it was entitled to she was entitled to submit a request for an appeal she was if she wanted to request an appeal she was are required to submit that to the doctoral faculty she would have then been given the opportunity to select a faculty member of her own choosing the doctoral faculty would have selected a faculty member of its own choosing then those two together would have selected a third member to hear her appeal out she never requested that appeal she would have been afforded it if she had asked for it and instead she elected to voluntarily resign from this program in september where i realize that i'm out of enough points in the mosaic to actually make a mosaic of what what what just question why didn't she just we take the practical i mean she apparently had done well in the classroom she was having some difficulties by people by a numerous people say that she wasn't really responded well in the clinical part of the program and that's where the rubber meets the road as we deal with the real patients and they were concerned about that i just returned it because she was told by her pro trusted advisor doctor gives that this one as it out for you you're going to go sit under her class again and the only way allowed back in the program full time is she approves you if you sit to the clinical practic again with her for a year and choose told that this woman has a racial bias i wanted advice my daughter goes through that again and we've got somewhere else or maybe maybe what you do is you put out of there could be somebody else involved in the process there's a number of people besides  after you can have this number of different ways judge and i think importantly that posting it might go to the proximate cause of certain damage and she the problem is