concern speech was protected the mayor cases from the supreme court which require due process for academic and disciplinary punishments go back to the ninety seven ts and nine defendants should have known they were violating my rights also the defendants have the burden of proof to assert that base shield they are shielded by qualified immunity for example could reasonably find that forcing me out of my group therapy lab and the effect of chilling speech because it simply are severe severed excuse me communication between me and my fellow at the march th group therapy session the journal entry about that class and the multiple complaints i made in the next twenty four hours this is not new in the to forty five of my brief on page forty five i explain and document how the defendants relate six months in producing the e mails that i properly request you thought i received over six hundred e mails eleven days before my deposition and i had not yet made sense of them those e mails included details of this secret investigation into me when i post summary judgment my declaration you could help me in your during a deposition you are asked to identify the reason that you were removed and you said still to this moment i don't know it doesn't make sense after six hundred and fifty something e mails and and documents still i don't know and now you're saying as i understand it and correct correct me if i misunderstanding that there  really read skim through then even though when they had six months they've lasted six months have you seen the docket i got two percent the motion to compel to get to these e mails now at that time in the time of my that position i knew that the only reason for depriving me and retaliating against me was my speech because the person that the professor did was in to treat me clinically as border with a borderline personality disorder diagnosis which is completely unethical he based only on that class on the e mails where i yes was asked my opinion about the group and the offered a criticism and say that the group was not being needed in a correct way and they asked for help from professors to solve the problem and from my calls and emails asking for help to the professors which i did not receive reply they forward them all they were communicating among them from dix these over six hundred e mails symptoms responded by meeting with plaintiffs to address these issues and also discussed internally how to proceed after careful deliberation they decided to remove from a lot of groups while promising to help her find a new one their conduct did not violate the or remaining in a specific class much less one section of a class nd police conduct was not made in bad faith is required to show deprivation faculty maybe reason professional judgment that plaintiff's presence in the lab group disrupted the learning process and caused plaintiff and other group members under stress and rd plane to receive all the process due there are multiple emails meetings and phone calls with plaintive to address her continuing presence as well as ample post operation avenues including article seventy eight dollars proceeding in that as well as the university's grievance procedure how would you respond to the view that there should be some depravation process before administrator could make the her side of the story there was also an e mail from doctors to donald saying you know we need to we need to meet this should not be a stressful so i believe that there was an opportune preparation notice and fix and under the circumstances when they tried to specific protected speech and at the very least there's no evidence of improper territory animists the records salish that the faculty here acted to protect the students mental health and make sure the lab group is meeting its educational your honour's i have property rights over the claim because i have a contract with a university i fulfilled my part i attended classes and had good grades and the university didn't fulfill that part  no due process because the defendants never mentioned that issue of judging if you you have read the brief and it was not mentioned that i discussed judging and that was what i was talking about with dr lee the defendants never gave me a reason or a chance to defend myself or two percent my side of the story regarding the charges i never knew the charge