chief in an instance where his personal confidential secretary is making statements that are one in our view not of public concern and to create a situation where you have   and jeopardizing that relationship between someone who we are allowed to look at or is not allowed but by nature our job is to are subject to seeing confidential information and she's making an authorized  f a funny spin on things particularly the summary judgment stage when we have to accept the inference has to be drawn from maybe maybe emphasis was on the authorized but i think the emphasis should be placed on the fact that when you do the balancing test the fact that you the police commission to turn in her prime she if you look at the letter carefully is defending her actions defending her actions and as a case in point out one of the distinction we look at in terms of when that something is or is not a public concern whether or not that person justifying her her actions to the police commissioner and what what she did the interesting thing about the letter to sort of jump ahead is that that letter demonstrates to me without question the irreparable nature of this relationship and go back to the balancing test she asked that let me ask if we're really focusing on three pieces of potential first amendment and just hypothetically if i agreed with you on the girlfriend statement second half of the pickering balance that's what that's the part i don't quite understand in the sense that if we if the allegation was that letter are that they're a letter to elsewhere was written in the honolulu magazine and we have this evidence that there's been some disruption to the employment relationship and what i'm saying is if we look at that letter not as it's not i'm starting internal monolog not as a as a piece as to whether or not he's protected speech but as the evidence they should be coming whether or not there is a clearly understood violation of our rights and i think the moran case is a case that we would rely on in terms of what the violation is not a violation of someone's first amendment rights  well in that case you either had not having heard or argument if that in fact is a position of court it would help us mentally i think that the case law it pretty well step forward right now i really do that the same time and onto him she was the secretary of the police commission so and that is a point to touch great is really talked about that she had in fact do cassidy she was the secretary to the chief and while he was on suspension with leave she was secretary to the acting chief to whom she named reports of freighters was conduct and which is the conduct conflict between the police commission or when there was a created a conflict between the police chief when he chose not to follow the directive of the police commission namely to surrender his badge  conflict not only between chief rapist who was on suspension under clear orders from the police commissioner not to do the things he did but also and he continue to do in place my client and untenable position officer was she charged with any responsibility to enforce the orders of the commission she was charged with in for she was not charged to enforce the spons and was put in a safe in the chief's office you have some difficulty in meeting and i guess it's understandable given who your client is and what the facts of this case  once you can see that there's a difference between scene the gun in the door closing the door and finding a law enforcement officer and or pointing it out to the commission and she's in the same building with lots of police officers and go in there ten ten fifteen feet away and during the time that you put the weapon in and move out why do you have so much difficulty understanding the difference between observing sergeant and he felt that men should be secured after i retrieve the gun the sergeant disengage the gun and it seems because you your to us that she wasn't the sergeant go get the gun that's apparently not what happened she  those officers civilian officers who have the authority to have weapons and to use just in just as it was inappropriate for the chief not to have the order of the commission it was equally inappropriate for her to take the action that she did which went way beyond simply reporting i don't agree with your hung up or what if i can move on to the letter if that was terminated and i want to tell you what it was for removing that loaded weapon and putting it in a safe it has nothing to do with anything you said to the police commission that actually was outside your authority as the secretary you're terminated that's  eighty three of the appendix although it was not an attack on me i thought it was an appropriate form of my private secretary to be feeling the need to be writing that i just didn't think it was the right thing reasons for doing it one of which under scrutiny is entirely legitimate and independent of any exercise of first amendment rights by the employee and others that may be more rational then i think it's clear that i because there was a sense that i had a tough time with my ex wife but if i brought this young lady back i would lose their support and the commission support jackie went so far as telling a first amendment violation isn't the standard if the if you can show we would have terminator anyway that he would win but he can't meet that burden and she and i would get into the balancing test articulated three but if out of the three remaining pieces of evidence we were just for purposes of talking here to determine that the two of them really didn't need to balancing test and first amendment and you only had one of those pieces  of the workplace and in fact he offered evidence to the contrary he moved my client on the first date of his return he fired or was in three months of his return you gave her her letter of term nation whose response is i can't remember the time but i think he told me referring to that the chief eagle i think you told me that she was out there with the upcoming conference that had been one of the early tasks to assist in the upcoming conferences so the chief himself acknowledges that there was no workplace disruption and the more i may be in the mind case by just going to remember the other question that that seems to be coming up because of the damage to the relationship and i think the damage to the relationship in the courts is focused on the relationship between the chief and his secretary not the secretary and the