him to because he was going with drug complaint or that that section prior to him making any taken any steps to withdraw them in a complaint plain and it finished moved into federal court they moved to the federal court within four days eighty one claim but they moved it within days of the court allow him to amend it if they were filed he never actually filed his mini complaint to circuit court with the players what the defense did is that oh on to under federal law if you you have that you think should permit you to go forward with your suit you make is against the city yeah say or whomever your son where with your son to see and individual to individual we actually went forward  it went to the substance of fact of imminent fear but additionally in my right to read that before the before the district court counsel i don't know if you were process to require all the all the witnesses to submit written away right after the incident is actually media instead we believe that the culture of these witnesses was how improper very  unethical when i went to deposition mr chambers which was represented city which was at that point out of the lawsuit and proud to any appeal being found out are notified that he will be represented in fact witnesses we try to do a temporary restraining order because of a tally improper he was employ a city the city had no interest at that point and if they were intice a pagan on appeal their interest was limited to a back seat at the deposition to observe not to lawyer they thought he was their behalf of the city they did not know the sea was no longer in a lawsuit so they thought it was misleading the witnesses as to their presence there and so they certainly did not they would think that they were there for them so you know to use witnesses statements read in selected quotes from the complaint suggest in some kind of an ethical behavior on the part of the plaintiff to them i think was how improper in it came out in trial because the that the jury at least had a right to know why they were behaving the way they were because part of the jury's duty is to know facts that might influence with in a fear with the truthfulness and credibility of the witnesses a rudolph who represents the individual defendant i'm only going to take two minutes as the court knows the suit is motion to dismiss was granted and we think that the trial yonder and there is no question that the city actually bear i mean we it came and she tells us that it came as a surprise to them that you were claiming to be their counsel that day young that you sat there as if you were head baby not had you been hired the city attorney office in memphis axis counsel for all city employees who are subject to the subpoena a court process to provide testimony it is come to the attention of the city that is employees if allowed on their own did not know how to respond to a subpoena those that didn't did not know how to report to court as required in the city as actively taken an interest in counsel and with this employees with respect to court process to make sure that they appear for depositions to make sure the documents are produced and to make sure that they know what to do at a deposition or in a court proceeding i have a lot of other things that i would much prefer to be doing but i spend a lot of time going to depositions and the court proceedings with city employees when they are testifying in their official capacity as employees it just so happens that i was representing the city in this case but there are hundreds of depositions and court appearances where i have a peer and when i'm dealing with these employees who are not sophisticated i'm concerned about is that they know they should testify truthfully and that they know what the rules are and i'm there to provide counsel to them as needed i don't try to go through the steps of trying to form a relationship with them  tell them i'm the ploy by the city to make sure that they know how to deal with testimony the argument is that there was a lot more than just tell the truth right i have a character and a reputation in memphis such that i don't think anyone would believe that i would do anything other than what should properly be done and i'm not accustomed to trying to  under the situ i would i would seek counsel rather than try to do all i can say is that i've had a license to practice for more than forty years and you had a chance to answer i mean that's that's why i needed to hear are issues that are raised on appeal or in our view completely without merit and i can address the issues would you address the counsel's argument that the red line statements that the she had she op proffered exceptions to the hearsay rule that she hoped would the court would it would agree with to get enter those can you remind me what exceptions and why they didn't whether those are in the record i moved in live in the those or red lines there had unsworn hand written statements that were written immediately after that a incident they were at some limited sense impression that that i've been counsel was having hoping would carry the day the new say they weren't two of them or were a day after the incident and then there was one there was witten week after the incident and then the other one was three weeks after the us so our argument was none of those exceptions applied they were just classic here's i statements all of those witnesses testified if you look at their testimony compare him to those statements they testified consistent with those statements well you can compare the trial testimony so there's no there was no prejudice because they matched let me read nothing else that's current there's no prejudice not because they were there to be cross examined it's the to the extent that they're inconsistency she could attempt to impeach the witness but that didn't happen if you look at the testimony that they testified c were just eye witnesses these were firefighters at the scene this happened during an active far this alleged assault no there were no physical injuries it was a situation where anyway because they all testified the other the other the other ever dish or read whether the city represented these subpoenaed city workers a deposition says it was not relevant to the assault case it had no relevance at all and so the court admitted it and basically and told counsel for the that the character evidence focused on the sufficiency of the evidence they filed no rule fifty motions so those are way out of arguments way i'm not i'm still not sure i understand the first or human on failing t and the court went on to say that this was a civil rights action based on the allegations of them in a complaint it was and so because it was a civil rights action the city any negligence claim against the city  of the allegations of witness tampering of an ethical behavior improper coaching of fact witnesses or outrageous it's de a deeply offensive to both of us it's twenty seven years we practice law the right way and it's not it's not improper to family had a way of staring people it did he did with these witnesses it's not improper for the city attorney to represent city employees at depositions it's not improper to meet with witnesses we thin coach these witnesses or you can look at the testimony these we should they were their statements were their red line statements were subpoenaed at the deposition so we gave them a copy of the readline statement and simply asked them what happened and we also gave them a copy of a trial exhibit the amended complaint all the statements say that that mike my client grabbed grabbed the fire fire doing an act of fire operation and turning the gun down the complaint that they file said that he grabbed him and put his hands on his neck and threw him against a truck i offered that peer graph from the complaint where they said that as as a trial exhibit and i asked each one of those witnesses is that what restraining order is ridiculous but we believe that there is that this is a frivolous appeal this is said don't do that lightly in the questions that for your client say here's what you're going to face if they were my client your honor brinton coaching it well if they were my client i would do that but these were not there these were not their own record saying that they were not represented i missed the train is that the city represent firefighters whale this is not a great of a frivolous lawsuit contrary to what they say i think what their conduct wants looking into and i think that it was very greed is it hard to play in this case because if you look at the