sheriff denied that they influence the sheriff to fire them is cast and they say that's just the end of the matter they didn't add it so end of story summary judgment is appropriate what i'd like to point out to coordinate is that fundamentally a jury is entitled to draw inferences from the evidence and the evidence in this case is that the two families without trying to get into all the details were moved to texas to get in for the year two thousand fifteen to get away from the drama the family the junior's family had called her place of employment and she left her job in mississippi and went to texas she said to get away from it all sixty five they had appendix at three thirty and this was a retaliation case it was a retaliation case where there's plenty of said i didn't get hired because i was assisting and as an existing employee and making a charge ar it's not this just of a private concern well let me put this in context here's what we're talking about you're out of the chief deputy of the cabinet this is the cheap law enforcement officer the canny and he is urging a low level employee in a can it was a very high unemployment right way one of the few jobs and gets working for the candy of the state that is prudent down there she's urging of our tenant i am my daughter is not going to have an abortion that it's not just a private dispute it's a matter of public importance when she says our my daughter to have this baby and once more she's going to have we have many cases very similar to this that i didn't see that in our economy what exactly was her your reason and i think that would go if it is true that she did she said she was more concerned about the health of life said the health of the bible so i don't know what she meant by this is thing about it for whatever viewpoint that has anything to do with the larger sample are public issues are public matters well i suppose i would i guess i would look at think it was in harris county speaking about the attempt on president reagan's life said next time i hope they get him and it went up to the supreme court after contentious history in this court and they that the it was a comment on the president's policies even though he was upset with the president or perception the process policy is work in perry blocks and minorities wasn't fired until three years later now you're saying that the animosity continued to may have built up or whatever but it wasn't the comment it was the conduct it was a course of conduct don't you think that led to the so we don't we don't think the timing issues fighting to that under those circumstances to mr griffith backyard thank you you please the court danny griffith from bolivar county mississippi right in the middle of all this we are a small county we're poor area but we've got a rich culture at home being a delta boy i'm also the city attorney for cleveland in the city attorney for rove it's up the road is drew mississippi which until anthony gibson came along it was famous for being the home of archie manning but if you go to gibson park three content for context this is not a first amendment matter is just not the content she goes and she's talking to the father the illicit lover of her daughter about a pregnancy and i tell you i've had in my teen year old daughter come to me pregnant out of wedlock there's nothing more personal and private what about the phone she could have gone to the share she did well i mean that conversation took place in a public parking lot right but it took place she went to him at work she went to no but it was in a parking lot and what happens there because jones is that she goes to somebody who's not her supervisor she goes to somebody who's in a different wing of the building it's a big facilit corrections and law enforcement he doesn't have any say over her employment he is the man who her daughter has the relationship with and he's trying to talk her into an abortion at least that's the story and pressure that's purely personal really recent i mean there is nothing more protected than what a professor says to a class at a college right oh my goodness i've got a younger daughter that's an art student she'd argue that with you all day alone but what's that case here but we get to the phone norm here looked at the johnson johnson versus hostage case actually where did johnson where did they go they went up the chain they went of the troublemaker he did in fact he's friends with the family really fired miscast and that's my point not until years later your honor and in that situation that's his facility and he that he's not required counsels reeves case which is wonderful it went to the u s supreme court and all that other stuff he got the politician to give a raise in mississippi the politician still in an at will employment can animosity is going on and you say it's a big facility but it can't be that big an intent of in a county thirty thousand people it's actually huge it's a state facility it began under a project where we did a geo bond issue  walk in the correctional side and then so she's going to see him pretty frequently the sheriff and then you have the two the investigators the father and the son and they're fairly important positions so it's just seems natural to me that this is something that ends up on the desk of the sheriff the sheriff actually has a separate word in that runs the correctional facility to meet these a c i standards w monster and he's in the law enforcement he doesn't see your every day and yet their friends and everybody appeared to keep the private matters down from interrupting the facility that was of one so overwhelmingly in twenty six think with anthony gibson actually coming over to bolivar county and running against him we don't have a lawsuit out of it but it's everybody knows everybody but that doesn't make for anything beyond a personal dispute turning into i'm going to get you and there's no evidence of that here you get down to actually the point on the three points out of connacht which definitely apply this espinosa decision i thought was interesting because when you're talking about the the context in this situation and espinosa there's no widespread public debate about this this is very very quiet it is a personal matter and if you look at the continue in stock up between the two families wesley jr he's on the birth certificate he was never proven to have not paid child support  he gets accused of a lot of things but he refused to sign over parental rights or veronica excuse me wesley's wesley jr why she ends up having to be the point of contact she has to suffer through being divorced in this case and i kind of she's stuck she's our she is the a very significant member of the clean police department she's first female investigator to answer anything or try to you hannah you know what i see the case is is one more public concern that brown got it right she did the right analysis and she cites gi my name is scale unraveling and i'm here today on behalf of the wesley's general wesley sr in general wesley jr and i just want to start by saying this case is clearly a case about alleged animosity but that's it just alleged because in this case it's been made very clear that the animosity too connected to the actual tama nation is quite a stretch just looking at the poet's brief in and of itself the examples of animosity like they're all examples that existed between the wife of gerald wesley jr and the daughter of the appellant he and their list four or five different incidents where they had a disagreement related to the birth of the child related to their beliefs about the birth certificate and how it should be assigned but none of those disagreements occurred between the wesley's and the appellant they were all completely unrelated parties to the extent encounters with wesley sr there is one allegation by she was approached by wesley sr that the sheriff thought that the continuation of the pregnancy  statement as it is alleged happened prior to his first election so when he was elected he was in office for three more years four more years and then he is the sheriff isn't real liked it and it was after that second reelection that she was actually terminated so that it actually never affected it didn't become an issue and after even though he was elected he still kept her on for for the for the his first term when once a baby born baby was born in december of two thousand and twelve and that was after the election yes your honor there and then they continued to have the fights about the insurance and the birth certificate and other other aspects about the existence of the of the child right sheriff's first term it is unclear but those fights that birth certificate issue the plaintiff states in their brief itself saying that that fight was between the wife and and the baby's mother ugliness costin's daughter those fights were and being engaged between and the wesley's and the sheriff and miscast and they were between the actual mother and the daughter and so to say that because those fights were going on it all at will except for live campaign for the other guy or they you know they may we retain inless a campaign but all i'm saying is so in the small circumstances here it is not it certainly raises a question in my mind that you have the father the son who have a very long connection with this law enforcement going to the sheriff and saying get this woman off my back we don't want to see your every day sheriff will provoke the sheriff it's in an interference with business relationships i mean it wasn't his it's what these other gentleman did in regard to th reason to fire her except i fired or is verges on incredible to me your honor we're opening the door to all these endless possibilities he hasn't given a reason but we're because  fired three people after re evaluating the applications that are giving reasons for any of the terminations not that i'm aware of and this is the type of how many how many did he fire when he first got elected i'm not aware of him at making any terminations but i'm not completely sure on  you believe it's wesley but i don't know they're your client i'm not i haven't seen the certificate but i'm not so i'm not completely sure on out but i know that i don't think the birth certificate was ever changed and he  been taking care of this shot he's never denied this shot at any time not just it hasn't been this we don't want to be involved it was more of the the wife who is the one who's been hit the most obvious and she had a disagreement with you know it's hard for me to believe that the guy who's acting like a bigamous is totally blows the existence of the of the child out of wedlock in other words he's totally fine with it even though he goes home every night and his legal wife is is giving him the devil yes can't be and i mean it's just hard for me to believe that the these gentlemen were papering this over in their behavior and i don't i don't mean to paint it in that way at all that's way to chance i don't believe that it was just everything's ok but at this point the child is moan about it mr wesley has taken responsibility for this child it's not a secret that he has to keep any more so it's out there so he's raising his child every once in secret right and could i'm sorry on it never was a secret it doesn't appear like it was a very well kept secret if it was ever intended to be a wesley's in fact the sheriff have terminated for any reason said without any evidence giving us something that they actively did much less something that wasn't intentional or willful or malicious we just don't have a causation here to continue to put this in front of a jury ok thank you very much been made a one very good when he's talking to the police and there were some minor inconsistencies and it's up to the jury to decide in a criminal case whether we believes our constantin lives under the seventh amendment it all to be up to the jury to decide whether they believe these guys and they believe the shit when he says i just fired it with no reason in response to your father's question about other employees who are way out in the depositions of him that he fired other employees we didn't get into why he was and i asked why there's no record about that incentive is the refusal to have an abortion and all the problems that arose after that that's a logical inference that a jury could draw from the evidence no direct evidence but just a logical inference that he must have fire either because he didn't like the fact that she wouldn't wife is heavily involved and it is testimony that the miscast as daughter didn't want to run the ex wife because she's afraid she might harm the child but there's all kind of you know evidence in the record about the hostility but that business about the morning he wanted custody of the