do want to emphasize one particular point and that is the protected activity that the court lower court dismissed and only concluded that it occurred one time in one nine and each time that these public happy disappeared and alhambra if they were doing police work there would be no reason for them to shake and rattle the homes of these of these individuals that live there not only w submitted in support of this some rejected motion that's actually supported and cooperated these helicopters that were flying very low with l a p d in sickness on it that were unusual these people ha d to come over i would not venture to say that that's not the truth but this is not what we have going here is helicopters mention over to do work that well because if this is how you know we don't  not be truthful about an investigation that they were conducting if they didn't have something to hide you conduct discovery with respect to the family yes i did your honor rachel the discovery show that  the best we could do with so many issues that we have to argue there are five causes of action in this case and because there are so many actual adverse activities that t nuisance claim it's the fourth amendment claim survives violation of my client's fourth amendment rights then the nuisance claim definitely falls because it's a lower standard do we know did you did you depose any police officers or others to determine why they were there try to determine why they were there your honor yes i did and each one of the statements were contradictory based even upon their own  documents on one occasion the officer that was fined the helicopter said that he was wishing people merry christmas in the area and i asked him so when did you wish these persons merry christmas and the area alleging disability discrimination disparate treatment and retaliation after march the twenty fourth two thousand his whole existence at the police department was not the same and here's the ad by the city dock and what does the department do they do not return him back to full duty as a patrol officer they keep him in the dark room and they can't shop when he's stuck in this test environment in seventy seven where there are rumors going on that he's crazy he sees helicopters he's internal affairs coming out of the wall city procedures requiring him to get clearance from dr kay and  that it's not the correct fact it's genuine fact and i mean the whole thing is misconstrued something if you look at the district court's decision you don't get the full picture of course the evidence was and excuse is policy they were very clear in the declaration of lieutenant lots which is in the record in this case the policy if it is put forth counsel has an issue with the fact that it's not in the l a p d manual itself this is a policy that well but it's not something else that isn't least a issue of fact as to whether this wasn't just invented for your benefit of this case i don't think so why not here's why i mean isn't the fact that you've got does address the particular situation we have with iraq he says this is what he does but you know who all we know he does it because the supervisors haven't caught on to it well this is what i do the only point i want to sound like an admission more than anything else the only point i want to make your honor is that he does that in his capacity as the officer in charge of medical liaison which has the duties of the los angeles police department your honor it is because of the manual doesn't say to do something different what else are lots and saying it's his practice or procedure is not different from what the manual gives it is as you said earlier it fills  ability to obtain officers records the ability to disseminate medical records that are confidential that is what the policy addresses what the manual addresses and there's no violation here of that generally it's penal code i know it's around eight hundred thirty two that because it's because lieutenant lots in his declaration states that he didn't have a specific recollection of this particular case what is undisputed your honor is that the tenant correct you one of the individual defendants received a condition and his situation so based on the record sunk the whole record here that is what the issues that he has put before them but the whole issue here is whether he was treated like everybody else over no pretext right yes now what finding a fact that could be made by the district court under all of the depositions standards and everything else that was considered by the district court to come the well that if you look at all of the all of the things that happened to us or child much of which is comes from just his own statements but all of that is harassing all of it is retaliatory doctor had a multiple of a doctor designated by the workers kind of condition or the person now department the doctor wrote if appropriate provide station to return to duty here's the second set of science because he when he came back to work he only came back to work with his own private physicians full return to duty and he felt that that was not sufficient so he wanted