understand exactly what is poorest so i thought i just wanted some clarification as as i understand it the only issue for us at present time is qualified in the district court chris that's correct sir your honor if there is a first amendment kyra i don't think there's going to be federal jurisdiction anymore well that would be a matter for the district court in the first instance to exercise her discretion in terms of whether to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction i think that's true but i don't i don't think the whistleblower claim is really a very valid claim prado the jury ruled on it but i think if you was not constitutionally protected speech and number two that even if the court were to rule that it was constitutionally protected it was not clearly established to the extent that my client mr rogers  being much more selective about granting that particular difference i think if i can quote from the court's ruling the court said that the clearly established role should not be defined as a high level at a high level of generality it has to be particularized in each case otherwise what the docket of qualified immunity really becomes of the court said an unqualified liability simply by a qualified immunity issue it's a very general i think the way the british record profit was that the right at issue was infringes on an employee's constitutional interest in freedom of expression and so you're wedging misconduct or wrongdoing by a public official and from there the district court went to the conclusion that that was entitled to the highest level of our solution will protection i think that doesn't really  a key fact that is in dispute is was he not performing effectively as a public defender or was he fired because he was clogging up the court's dock moving system public defenders who were not pleading not sufficient cases and that he was concerned about the violations of the rights of his clients how it was not matters of public concern i think th the priority that he had when he went in to talk to both of those men who was his dissatisfaction with where he was in the public defender's office was he was upset that he had seniority and he had and he was no longer on a trial to that is to reach that balancing test play right don't we have that as to at least the statements now concerns the constitutional implications of after motions for concerns about violating matter whether it was true or not i think that's a very important consideration here this was something that was on and that security just made no effort to try to determine whether it was true or false i think it really didn't matter to him whether it was rather the right to censure of the so far because i am discussing his operation of the public defender's office but to reach that question i do believe that it is necessary for the work to allies public really you've been told from the outset that this is worth pushing hearsay and there is no identifiable source well why isn't it at least recklessly i statements with reckless disregard for the truth to be  referring to page six of the district court's opinion on the summary judgment motion and footnote thirty of that opinion in the text drew frights that defendant roger has not said for the evidence that the speech at raise which county officials and then in for thirty she writes defendant only argues that plaintiff's complaints to friends colleagues magisterial district judges had private attorneys occurred at work and  understand recipe for us now in light of that footnote as i started just a little bit a few moments ago before we grudged in order for the poor to our lives in this case properly it has to consider a public defender functions now and the pattern that has developed and broke for the public defender offices that i have worked at and this is really the big the bigger issue for the work is the idea that we all cherish to the public defender the factory if you read to release affidavit and roger's affidavit you will look closely at some of the complaints that are making about my performance job gets hung over one discovery job is hardly off the laboratory reports this something that i believe that the public has the right to know are cheap public defender who is willing to manipulate his trial teams to keep the defendant from getting vital information about his case when he thinks that all the defendant needs to do is get well and you will see that language in there your honor it's true is i at the point of stand your arguments as soon as the public that the public interest and public concern about the and i think judge your last question and i'm sure it is as we are asked today to address the specific question of whether the statements that really are protected speech it would be statements protected absolutely or were they ruled out by the district court on a motion to dismiss i don't believe bush statements are statements so public can sure and i believe that i should in my brief way to we need to address those threshold questions before we even get to balance internally but if i'm not appearing as a public defender in those hearings if i've simply wrong the premise she's waiting for a case to be yet none of these discussions w case we were made in conversations that i could usually just as easily have had at the christmas party or on a street corner or on a bus look building reporting credibility is i did not want to judaize to get done i didn't want candy to think that he had any right to manipulate the personnel in the public defender's office that's why i wanted an official investigation because that can't be kept i believe as i said that you know i don't want this we did it with discussion it's not a nice job to run the public defender's office to make personnel decisions like that  defender gets investigated possibly get disappointed and hands down a policy that says i am backing you well for now i want everybody in this office pension whatever discovery they want you can get with your treatments laboratory did not want an internal investigation because i knew was being said behind my back i think i put it in my mind my deposition i think that by an attorney raid question do you want my deposition which is now were a year ago i remember saying because he