the honorable the united states court of appeals for the st circuit is now in session all persons having any business before this honorable court making up their attendance and they shall be heard god save the united states of america and this honorable court court as in session fifteen years after his st two years was assigned to the d e a s was a person premium police officer take one of these full time positions with the da and he remained in that position for eight years serving with distinction up until january of two thousand and sixteen as a result of that rests he became involved in april of two thousand and fifteen which involved the use of a  processing thank you because they just learned of the c i in any testimony that went forth would cause great concern to respect the credibility of someone within the police department detective will do the right thing he got the transcript that same did you read through it he saw numerous instances of getting over not being truthful with respect to the sciatic including the fact that he had met officer cou tempted got well that same day took this transcript to his superiors specifically assistance that it seemed attorney so now it ended that he be cheap slattery and brought it to their attention and told them that  looking to take some action with respect to this and it was quite insistent on that they had him feel that report it that and investigation was conducted a thorough efficient investigation investigation and only was present for two of the interviews that were conducted he simply roderigo to work without addressing the numerous interviews that indicated option could be no was untruthful going to do it top to bottom review he found there was weak leadership and following net tend to continue to seek redress for this and ultimately went outside  flawed to me extent that she showed tremendous bias and involved ferguson in each step of the investigation her retention letter never indicated that she in fact had been retain every rd lead to an investigation well of himself where the truthfulness charge or not having anything to do with the retaliation in addition to that more took direction to matter to quell detective got wells ongoing attempts to bring this coverup and perjury to the light of someone who would take actions on it the information in what the attorney moore said was a he said she said that she led to settle that included what she said in order words to her documents reserve some time well here you later not the speech issue in this lawsuit the speech issue in this lawsuit is the january two thousand and sixteen meeting that he had with the f b i where he reported seven i differed incidents one was the i had read your previous at i had understood that while you were making this he meant that there was no protected speech and no jury could possibly conclude that untruthful and that finding was made after a hearing where witnesses were taken and evidence was taken and mr gotten himself had an opportunity to testify before the independent hearing officer who was not an employee of the town who refused to testify and based on all the evidence the hearing officer found he concluded that yes mr got what was untruthful during the internal investigation went on to his senses when mr got well denied having made two different comments to the chief during that internal investigation blowing the place up in saying brando was on a wire on both of these kids since the hearing officer found that the statements were made and therefore the denials were untruthful so we have a hearing officer making a recommendation that this untruthfulness could lead to terminations of a police officer because truthfulness is essential job function of the police and instead what happened was the chief had exercise discretion to suspend this officer five days as a result of this untruthfulness and it was well founded in that would have happened anyway regardless of the reporting of the stale and petty incidents to the f b i that had treated the phone call with adverse employment actions was the initiation of an investigation against the plaintiffs that happened in late february the rd was the nd of march and that that was precipitated by his persisting in pursuing his complaints to the f b i after february could you address that argument certainly the facts show that the internal is made is that the chief then expanded to scope of her review to include got well as a target yes sure that is accurate that in fact the during the course of her  investigation when it got well was denying that he made the statements to the chief february th phone call then the chief allow the investigation to expand to address the truthfulness of those two statements just give me the dates because i think she wasn't one w retain she wasn't retained until march something right but she was the phone calls on february th two thousand and sixteen in her investigation i believe was and her investigation was expanded to include got well as a target yes your honor the she did it if you missed it got on for at least four separate occasions sometimes for four to six hours at a out you were saying that she in fact had talked to him at that and take out that had caused her to be concerned about whether he was rolled out that sequence exactly and so we had not a geisha to investigate the untruthfulness it was deemed to be found untruthful and then we went to hear an officer and hearing officer a greeter was on truth so any reasonable public official when found with a police official in town with officer who was found untruthful by not side investigator in an impending hearing officer is going to discipline the officer so that's not healthy in a nutshell so we would have disciplined him regardless of his speech which was different from the hearing at this time