district court judge just record in this matter did not give me a summary judgment hearing which violated my fourth fifth sixth and some of the members constitution's on you know in retaliation southwestern texas medical center versus nasser in that one i was in a protected category the fallen of eagles the charge to i was one one of those answers that they gave was to the on the point of security that i was perceived as intimidated by my clients and that the employers were they were said that i had to do something wrong in order for you to terminate me and he said would not that he would get into this so and then after that you know also as i was leaving you know i mean bob said you know why couldn't he just let you know this just girl you know leave early going back to a two thousand and nine situation where the shell lady was just leaving going off the job and then one day after six or seven time i asked her if you know because i was coming to work early i asked her i said skilling that are you leave and she said yeah but i said but aren't you supposed to be here and i said you know i said it's not my responsibility to tell him she when you had asked me to leave you just get up and walk out the door so i don't even know sometimes you know because i'm coming early by living thirty you know mean start you know clean up no doing right prepping everything that i have to do for the you know center for the the kitchen coordinator accused me of getting into a confrontational kind of situation with her and that never happened she accused me of not telling whether residents list now for the whole year that this new kitchen corner work there no that we have a d yes we're frankly not going to get involved in the details about that two thousand and nine encounter and the focus really is on the district court's reason for granting summary judgment here which which would in essence if you say you were we all know you were fired on the twentieth yes we know that the good samaritan got word on the nineteenth about your second the c charge yes but we also have these affidavits from  from the good samaritan manager saying now we decided about a week earlier that we were going to fire mr lead better and if that's true then you lose that's not true ok so what's the evidence that it's not true me into a meeting on the twentieth and during that during that meeting you know bobby ensign decided then you know that i you know i mean was you know not going to change and i wasn't good for the this marriage i was being combative in argumentative and  nothing was recorded it and this and they went through this all through the government process where they could not tell me i written anything wrong also to they gave me documentation that in discovery that they were supposed to it after october fifth whether if there was any incident involving me it was going to be thoroughly investigated they were going to have other you know it was going to be a neutral party who's going to make that decision and then they were going to go through that but they never did that you knew sherry right now i represent good samaritan ministries and i think the court has hit right on the issue in this case there is no as judge turned and said at the trial court after the presentation of the sub briefs in summary judgment there's there uncontroverted evidence that the decision to terminate mr lead that was made on october fourteenth two thousand and ten why why was why was the actual discharge deferred to the twentieth mr bobby anderson historic supervisor has a job he is a nurse he's on twelve hour shifts that was the first state both of them that were at good samaritan at the same time that he could communicate where i'm sorry just sits down i don't understand sir i don't understand what you're saying so october fourteenth they decided to fire him correct they made a wire to the wire why do they defer that by six is mr lead bettors immediate supervisor works twelve hour shifts as a nurse he also got another job at another job yes or answer what does this have to do with anything if they want to fire him why don't the tell him you're fired know but he's not the boss of the company so why do they have to wait six days for anderson's show up that was mr pease decision with me if i did what was the basis for that decision that bobby anderson wanted to be the one to communicate to him what he wants us to deliver the message he did why your honor i think any sense no one wants to be the messenger bad news i i can also what about the timing so the nineteenth they find out that it is filed and you know on the other another complaint and wham oh they fire him well important for us the i don't i don't understand that you have all he filed a claim for unemployment he made reference to it yes he made that claim on the seventeenth do we have it in our revenues it's in it's he just argue rather than reiterate every fact i affirmatively stated each and every fact attributed to me in defendant's motion and memorandum is true and correct to the best of my knowledge yes  how do you impeach somebody who's signed an affidavit like that this case well i guess the facts that are laid out in the brief here it was done well let's take a look at that ok yes  r for example i'm looking at page two of your summary judgment memorandum it's essay page seventeen set forth in your brief in support of summary judgment they're not asking what is the evidentiary foundation for that the discussion that mr anderson and and or mr heath with had with the residency question so it is complete supervisor arrived for her shift plaintiff refused to answer her questions regarding a resident list and whether the computer was working and so on and so forth again saying your honor total hearsay yes it is present it is there the basis of their decision that that is correct but as to whether that kind of pipe if i want to cross examine them about whether any of that is true they'd simply have to say well i don't know their rights that they would say that that's what they relied upon but whether it actually occurred that's correct but whether their decision was incorrect or not well i'm fully aware of the our our law on this subject but i'm also aware of what you need to do to move for summary judgment which is present evidence and i don't see how this is it played if a little look further down in your brief played if was given a letter memorializing defendant's concerns and repercussions that would occur if he continued to engage in the improper behavior discussed during the october five two thousand and ten meeting point if was asked to sign the letter only to acknowledge that he had read and received a copy while quite a signed letter he did so claiming that his signature was made under duress now both of the two key sentences there are written in the passive voice they're not attributed to either keith or anderson they were both present and both personally and kind of how do you pin them down on that given the way these affidavits are set up they can each deny that to their heart's content if they want to they're not they're not denying it you know i'm sorry i said i'm picturing a think here your honor is this a customary practice suit of for doing affidavit suit is not your honor this is a case that has been placed before the district court in two different matters there is a lot of documentation court in any more expansive set of papers no other reason no do you argue anywhere that his complaints to the c e o or the lawsuit he filed were frivolous was frivolous i believe it was unwarranted but he had the right  actually asking about something that is troubling me assuming we can decipher who's testifying as to what here it does seem that heath and henderson  that effect right yes but the decision to fire him was then made with no further i guess incident or evidence against him is that right there where there was the him calling the director he flyer that sort of thing but when it was that i'm sorry when was that it was after the letter of the fifth just shortly thereafter and then mr he had didn't have an had an opportunity to talk to a strange what they wanted to do but if i may your honor the key here is whether there is any temporal evidence and by the plaintiff's only admissions that the good samaritan didn't get a notice abuse charge until the  corroboration any i mean the note and anything else that the decision was actually made on the fourteenth thousand and eighteen you know june two thousand and seventeen and they bring that back into the situation when you were asking about you know bobby anderson and them know about my terminations also to bobby anderson said you know  documentation stating that you know that i followed on the twenty first which they gave me i wrote a letter to the district court about the situation you know i mean that she was trying to say that i filed on the seventeenth if i remember correctly and i have the documentation that i c