before i start my argument i a where they ask and with your honor's if you have any questions of me or if you have specific issues that you would like me to address first no specific issues to address first i you know i i would say that again if you look at the wording of it it talks about that the statements cannot be used in any subsequent prosecution or criminal proceedings right so to again i think as you know sometimes the statements of the states only evidence so again it theoretically it could turn into a transactional situation although i think the wording of the the form tries to confin it to use immunity for example if you made he was already charged with a crime so that's what they were investigating so investigating a crime that has already been tragic makes it very unlikely that statements  yet occurred would be the only evidence of a crime because he wouldn't have been privately charged if there had been either statements made prior which of course wouldn't be affected by any immunity granted for any statements he makes during the interview with the board of education or there could be evidence of a completely different nature such as in this case when there were alleged eyewitnesses all of this is the possibility of what statements could come out  interrogation again i think u s justices and judges know sometimes there's the i'm going to question to get the end where the investigator the police officer says you know is there anything else you think i should know or is there anything else you want to tell me subsequent would that be the case under the so called automatic community that would necessarily and sue ah well i think in response to your of the guarantee case to those cases which blanket flavor of honey and it was required as opposed to those cases that did not blanket action i think is an employee or a defender or suspect comes into an interrogation with the right against self incrimination now are we all that many times they voluntarily give up that proceeding can't that notice be presumed at that point at least up in the apple case has never seems to make that distinction well what i think that there is absolutely no statutory authority for the inspector general to confer immunity or even offer any if you look at the statute thirteen point one the i am talking about trans know whether the presumed immunity that follows under the gardener approach is the harm that i manifest itself in against any kind of terminations whether constitutionally valid or not i believe that the prosecuting authority has officially conferred immunity as  was the case in the share case that is actually said by my opponent and that reliance on the attorney's advice at that point is not reasonable because there is a great record written signed by the which states pretty clearly albeit seventh circuit not other circuits and that it says i'm quoting the government is not allowed to force a person to make a statement even out of court that might be used as evidence that he committed a crime it's not even allowed to pressure him into cooperating by threatening to fire him if he's a government employee for his refusing to provide such evidence it has every right to investigate allegations of misconduct including criminal misconduct by its employees and even forced them to answer questions pertinent to the investigation but up if it does that it must give them immunity from criminal prosecution on the basis of their answers so really what we have there is is a clear statement least in this federal circuit that what what occurs of these circumstances is that once you begin that that really lack of choice if you want to preserve your employment immunity in this case they really are because in the case of use of unity there they have to hold the keys to what would be admitted in evidence and since it's not transactional immunity that we're speaking of mr going should somebody tried to introduce a statement that was given with this type of requirement that they do have to protect their job with the precedent that that can't be done you can't compel the answers or even question the answers without granting the immunity in that situation the judge would be absolutely empowered to say to the prosecuting authority should they try to use it you may not use this evidence in this you know if you yourself were even alluding there are different agencies and different prosecuting authorities within a municipality for example within my county within several neighboring counties within the u s attorney's office and so really what you have to rely on is nothing you can get every potential agency that could possibly prosecute somebody but more looking at the nature of your muni that's granted because of the circumstances under which the statements are made it is all a part of the factoring process where the jail side of the criminal case ok now how do you know under what circumstances that would distinguish between a genuine waiver  adelaide course waiver in the one case the community would nevertheless survive in the other i don't see that it was so the question is do you constitute a freely and voluntarily given way of course you see in situations like this and this isn't just apply to teachers police officers is a part of their disciplinary investigations have this happened over and over again and anyone who's read those has seen it that the there's always a statement made by the defendant nurse attorney defendant and his attorney's request say i'm only answering this question these questions because i may be innocent completely as your client may be innocent completely but it's a question that they just simply make a statement that the only reason we're we're giving up our right to remain silent is because we've been told that we're going to lose our job as a result of not answering right i understand it does happen and i also understand that in some of the collective bargaining agreements there is a immunity provision that there would have to be payment under  fired for a criminal act and that chrome offense was not answering the question ignorance of the law and i'm excuse for him how do we get around that my  position is this the the statute that makes the failure to cooperate a crime that's not technically a government repartee but it's certainly a double whammy in the sense of i think we're more from the the failure to cooperate with the inspector general in fact if you look at priest priest talk about that chick or public schools there is a filing motion to supplement the record which was the night guilty disorderly conduct i understand but whatever it is of whatever the label for it is and we're not interested in the substance of it but only in so far as we're only interested in the label which should  going to talk about the separation of powers i believe that's such an important issue relative to this case because in then case the there has the clear the failure to cooperate  i think that's the situation many teachers disappear in case they heard that they have the opportunity to suspend with or without pay pending the investigation pending the hearing that's true no matter what kind of to begin with let me ask you why and i went back to the record to look at this in the motions that were in there in the trial court there was no citation of these the board delegation o actions directed by the board would list sufficient to give thirty two well how can that be the case when the then provision says other action requested by the board it doesn't still began what was request and the request that you do have was made in one thousand nine hundred ninety eight oc and it is a aside this that we would simply assume that such other assistance was requested also i don't know that one takes judicial notice namby pamby there has to be some special request for them on a motion and this is a resolution it is not a regulation it's not a statute i don't know what's the status of if we're allowed to really consider that right and if you're not allowed to consider that this is the board has the authority to investigate when its employees are charged with criminal acts why not why would you why would you just since the primary inspector general shall have the authority to conduct investigations into allegations or instance of waste far and financial mismanagement in public education within who jurisdiction of the board etc etc and then many many lines later in the in the last clause of the feast this statute is i'm sure you're very familiar slider says and shall perform other duties requested by the board one would think under an analogy to use them generous that it would have to partake of the same character of the specified types of activities for which it was the point it's it's difficult to understand why there's a very narrow universe of circumstances which they with i guess they don't need the direction of the of the order to investigate the financial part that's would be the logical interpretation of fact and then to find out what's on the menu with an air of bread and that would be a duty it would be assigned by the by the board and and so it will play i think it's important that they are one of the offenses which would cause one to lose your license or under the statute prevent him from being hired as a teacher he said right that's right so you know even if he was guilty that's not a disqualifying it's not statutory one of the statutory leave numerated offenses but i think it shows that he acted both the morally and criminally and the reason i think he acted morally despite less counsel said we sponsored him to come here to teach once the government in a t says you you have to answer these questions your immunity attaches so just by telling you you have to answer these questions that's when your constitutional immunity attaches  this statement and gave information what happens next is no representation from you or from the board that he was in fact co immunity which he was given immunity the constitution gives in that that's what the attwell case and the uniform sanitation that once we tell him you have to answer these questions are you going to be fired don't presume that the answers will be of a mission of guilt to trigger the right not to answer questions when you were being charged with a crime or being investigated for a crime there's not a presumption that the answer should not giving would be admissions and so how is it cured by the fact that when he later decides to testify if he says something that should be consistent with his innocence so he's not being yesterday permitted himself right that's his story to story is that's a unique spin on the jurisprudence around the fifth amendment right to remain silent i don't see that anywhere in the law he doesn't have a right to remain silent in the civil case if given the same you know that's what the case is say he doesn't have that right but but you're  immoral and because what he did what what was it was it was l l for him when he was questioned by his employer who hired as long as you're talking about the question it's immoral for him not to have  more interesting i think is now he has to incriminate himself but he's protected against the consequences of his testified at the dismissal hearing that he had no specific directive from the board to investigate mr chop i think that's important secondly if you look at section thirteen point one