dismissal of his claim was that the understanding that he was what i will say induced him to conduct that was in violation of his employment agreement and that was a representation that was made both to the employer as well as to employee and you know i still don't quite understand because he doesn't really have a contract that can be interfered with and you have very firmly just claimed any interest in pursuing a theory of interference with a prospect of economic opportunity that's half of your reply for it says no no no we're not doing that so i don't know where it is that employers don't have the right to fire people even for bad reasons if it's an employment at will obviously putting to one side statutorily protected statuses such as race or religion or have you no he doesn't but that's not in this case he's he's just asserting their supervisor for reasons the district court had a hard time problem ng decided to undermine him and somehow manipulated i don't know somehow made the company found that the us could that this was a cause of action that could be pursued on the intentional in future parents and i think what i'd like to explain to the court and i think what perhaps the best way to disclose to  to describe this is that mr crawley came to jeffery from new age and he came for the purposes of creating what i'll say this iron ore business that was done in commodities business as well his where jefferson some legal difficulty from allegedly poaching employees and so we get to the point where they say well let's not run the iron ore trades are the let's run through london that's legitimate or not is not the forest happily so that that goes on and there's mr webb you know thinking that he had been hired to do a certain amount of work in chicago but it's not going to be done in chicago but where the district court had trouble and i certainly have troubles figuring out how this fits into any of the legal theories you're pursuing where's the underlying contract what in heaven's name would make frawley better off by undermining the person who works for him and having that business just destroyed basically you know the company je well i think in the world i think and this is the point i'm getting at what mr prado is it's actually jeffrey's decision internally is broader than just moving up from chicago to london what mission later on when the when the matter gets further along in as a expert in iron ore and to develop and how i mean sort of style what that business and what just what mr and he did and what mr fawley did is he had his bets and he wanted to stay in the business and he wanted to stay in the game for the lack of a better description description and he tells his underwear underlings his reports he says i want you to continue to work on the iron ore trade and he did that under the color of authority that he had with the from jeopardy because the two because mr web say look he's looking to maintain his professional relationship and professional reputation the business need does that by maintaining his contacts within the iron ore business as well as for him only yet that's probably quick as possible for him to take that business those contracts those transactions to another location or another think or potentially i suppose you could go back to jefferson and and and and convince them to open up because it's profitable but that they didn't ask if you know you're essentially asserting self dealing on the part of that he's not being a faithful employee of geoffrey's that he's off there on his own frolicking detour and he's dragged web along with him does that mean that i think that's correct i think that's exactly what he's done he's he's he's outside he's rogue he's doing directly what the executive committee and jeffrey says that he should not be doing and he makes a representation which is false a number of occasions to mr webb saying mr webb go out there and do what you're supposed to do these are newer trade misrepresentation about what jeffrey's was going to do mr webb specifically relied upon that to his detriment by engaging in this conduct when he could have been doing more part profitable trades or working in another business or even developing another line of business in another allegations of mr frawley going to mr webb and saying do these things and there's also a chronology chronological stamp to that as well too because it all happened after the date on which the executive committee makes the determination that they're no longer going to be in the iron ore business so for the purposes of the stablish ing specific representations those are pled specifically in the complaint and then there's a general allegation of paragraph seventy two of the complaint where it says those were don and those were misrepresentations so to the extent that the court is requiring or that there's a specificity that's in the complaint there's dates and times from mr frawley to mr webb directly and then there's the specific allegation of the executive committee directing mr frawley to tell his direct reports that they should no longer being gauged in this business so we have the one that the allegation in the complaint that says jeffrey's out there is the allegation  participate in the iron ore trade when jeffrey said specifically done that he's rogue at that point and he's not acting in the best interest of mr webby certainly not acting in the best in the interest of what's missing though i mean he certainly dissipating his employer that's understandable but every act of disobedience to an employer doesn't mean that your self dealing or not like you know the person in the business who happens to have a choice a parcel of land and you sell it you know for a the point i was making is that he can take of those transactions those deals he can either go somewhere else or he can attempt to as you describe potentially try to convince somebody else that these this transaction meaning with injuries that they should be done and if it doesn't go well he can say that mr webb was rock he can say to mr webb's did this the violated the rules and so what he's done is he set mr weber as the individual to keep him in the marketplace and then he can mr webb can take response before the portability of the transactions in the portability of business with people in the industry and so we specifically stated that look you take that out and that's an inference that can be made based upon the allegations of what i will call the moving the business and  and and frankly it seems to me as i describe it a hedge is exactly what these individuals in this business are in the business of doing that's what they do that's what they i understand and that's what mr frawley did and a hedge when you do it in a trade is not illegal but when you do a hedge when you're dealing with your underling and then you're lying about what the representations are from your employer that's when the fraud arises out of that the claim i asked a couple of procedural questions yes yes or what's the amount in controversy here it is more than seventy five thousand dollars and in fact you know that earlier disagreed with the no no your honor i think earlier you resisted removal i resist the removal based upon a procedural failure what i believe was a procedural failure on the part of mr frawley to specify in his notice of removal the dollar amount only being based upon the what i would call the prayer for relief that was in my original complaint and if you will call you when i went back and forth now i really  manager so i do agree you have some good you and that's already been the other procedural question has to do with your argument that the district judge should have allowed you to amend your complaint it warmed my heart to see the passage quoted at page twenty two of your and that but and i apologize that's quite an oversight i believe it it does now correctly state the law of the circuit procedurally to some later cases but we were merely expect somebody who says we reverse on a failure to court to grant leave to amend to have identify the amendments and i don't see that in the district court i don't see it here i think that i would say to you that the discussion about the portability is what i would tell the court went in when does that first appear that first appears in a response to the motion to dismiss and it's documented six a page thirteen of that document that was filed and we talk about it and it's in response to the motion saying response to the motion to dismiss where we asked for leave in the event so when you didn't identify that amendment to the district court and where did you identify it for us as an amendment would you would have made to cure the problems i don't believe we've done that i don't think solely to harm the web or a few other things then it would start looking like a tort interference claim and we're not in the nine b part of the case now where in the first part explain to me why he hasn't stated a claim that frawley was really self dealing entirely and so isn't under the umbrella of that act will contract that you have i'm not sure that i would say that we ever leave the by causing jeffries to breach its contract to breach employment contract subsidies employment will it's funny it has some contractual aspects it has many aspects for which there's no contractual  laboring on turner so that that self dealing or whether we're if that's what we're going to call it is still directed at the plaintiff his damages or her his so called reason why he lost his job was because you labor too long in those endeavors when he could have done other things  employment we've just given you well that's a business relationship surely that would suffice as of completing under illinois law i think that that's that's correct so no other words to get now geoffrey's in our case rejected which implies that pursuit of the business in general is just a strategy that being employed it's not prohibited it's not it's not going to end the relationship with a priest as the global head of metals i purview to have his employees pursue business and show jeffrey said maybe they should change their mind about previous decisions ultimately he was mistaken but again that's business judgment especially someone at the high level that jeffries that probably was that no illinois court has disagreed with that and the courts in the circuit have have applied that rule consistency consistently which is and that will employee may be able to pursue a torturous interference with economic advantage but they don't have a torturous interference with contract  f there's nothing else we would just ask for the court to affirm all right thank you very much anything further mister that briefly the citation to cody was correct i apologize for that but there's a citation  the other issue is that the factual occasions here they're picking and choosing as they go along the the critical allocation then the complaint is that the executive committee object three made a determination and to do something else that that was within his business judgment but the allegations of the complaint as are set forth now specifically say that jeffrey said were out and in fact later on when the transaction is presented to the c e o and the c e o comes out at a very high level and says to my client he says no way we've been out of this since may thirteenth that's not happening that's exactly what the situation here is it's a misrepresentation of the fact that was made directly to mr webb and mr webb then