speak thank you your honor it's a privilege to be able to to present this case to you i believe this case is very straightforward and i pray that this court will grant me the hearing i am requesting litigate evidence which the defendant failed to disclose and which therefore denied me the ability to fully and fairly litigate these issues which were not available to me at the time of my article seventy eight proceedings referencing pages twenty seven through twenty eight of my brief under legal argument the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents a plaintiff from related gating in a subsequent proceeding and issue a fact or law that was fully and fairly litigated in a prior proceeding collateral estoppel however is permitted only if the identical issue was raised in a previous proceeding the issue was actually litigated and decided in the previous proceeding the party had a full and fair opportunity to mitigate the issue and the resolution of the issue was not the ferry to support a valid and final judgment on the marriage under new york law among the relevant factors to consider in deciding whether a party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in a prior proceeding for purposes of applying the doctrine of issue preclusion are the files of the claim in the prior proceeding the form of the prior proceeding the extent of the prior litigation and the availability of the evidence now that was not available at the time of the prior proceeding it wasn't until i was able to depose the former superintendent more than one year after my article seventy petition was dismissed that joseph de micco admitted under sworn deposition that he did not conduct an independent appraisal of the administrative charges and stuck with the cations again and he also did not review the transcript taken from the administrative hearing held against me as falsely reported on the legal instrument he signed which authorized my terminations from the new york state police based on the legal duties mr jimmy cole knowingly and willingly failed to perform i would ask that the court review page one hundred and thirty seven of volume one of my appendix and which joseph to mico state i joseph paid to me go superintendent of the new york state police having made an independent appraisal of the ad men and mended charges and specifications dated may th two thousand and fifteen and having reviewed the findings and recommendations of the hearing board submitted after a hearing held on june th and july st two thousand and fifteen and the transcript of such hearing being made available to me do hereby make the following determination the findings and the superintendent of the new york state police to perform these duties are taken from codes rules and regulations of the state of new york title nine executive department subtitle k new york state police part four hundred and seventy nine and are written in the new york state police manual rule three and the new york state police disciplinary hearing officers legal manual however under sworn deposition joseph amigo testified he had no knowledge of part four  nine he had no knowledge of the new york state police manual rule three and he had no knowledge of the new york state police disciplinary hearing officers legal manual and in fact endorsed the legal instrument authorizing my illegal and wrongful termination from the new york state police based soley on the hearing board's findings and recommendations which depositions also revealed was not at all an independent decision of the hearing board but was in fact the document produced by division counsel's office only to be falsely filed in opposition to my article seventy eight petition as the independent findings and recommendations of this hearing board under new york state police manual rule three at the conclusion of the hearing finding and recommendations of the hearing board shall be submitted to the superintendent for his final determination and the accused member may request to have the final decision of the superintendent rendered without the transcript of the sus of the testimony such request shall be in writing and shall be restricted to a waiver of the requirement that the transcript of health mony be available to the superintendent before his final decision i did not waive that requirement that the superintendent render his decision without reviewing the transcript of the testimony in this case because the transcript provided evidence which was crucial to my defense it not only provided direct evidence of the false testimony stephen the growing provided against me as it related to the accusation that i disobeyed him related that related to narcotics related operational duties i was regularly assigned as a member of truth face the t r u it also provided direct evidence that the findings and recommendations of the hearing board were never written by the hearing board they were in fact written by division counsel to incurred include a direct quotation which appears within these findings and recommendations as reportedly taken from an experienced narcotics supervisor which in reality was a direct quotation taken from former division council member lois goal and the contradictions to be administrative charges would have been immediately revealed if the former superintendent conducted an independent appraisal and reviewed the transcript as he would be legally required to do i presented the court with sworn testimony from stephen the gravelly and then his sworn testimony which came from the transcript he testified coming from seeing that lifestyle and working in counterterrorism i know it's a different position because unseen that there is a saying you are the tip of the spear because you are out there in the street doing the job it's not what we do in counterterrorism it's an intelligence world and investigator oliver from her military responsibilities knows that it's behind the scenes we are not operational we gather information and we pass it along i took that from page four hundred of my appendix yet your honors if you look at the page ok if you look at the big duties that i submitted a judge i was a signed the same scene that related narcotics related duties from stephen to growly in addition judge that inside the transcript if the superintendent had read it he would have known that this could not possibly be true richard allen when i confronted him i also deposed ken your honor he was a hearing board officer and when i confronted him with the false statement that appeared in the hearing board's findings and recommendations he acknowledged that he never wrote this document he said he read the findings and he concurred with it they were written by division counsel it didn't even come from the hearing board members and i couldn't present this until after i found out the  i immediately filed a motion i presented it to the district court and the district court said that that issue preclusion prevented me from re litigation that this was evidence that was never disclosed to me it didn't come to light until poll these defendants and i i am respectfully requesting that this court allow me a hearing to present this evidence which would never disclose and which would have required the granting of my my article seventy eight petition primarily on our brief but i would like to make however a couple of points for the court's consideration st to be successful on this appeal miss oliver needs to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion and d her motion for a preliminary injunction but she cannot do that here because the district court's decision is grounded on a well established legal president issued by this court that precedent provides that to obtain a preliminary remedy if the court were to wait to wait until the conclusion of the trial to resolve the harm here though the alleged harm is missing all of us discharged from employment back in two thousand and fifteen and this oliver is ultimately asking this court to force the new york state police to reinstate her as a new york state police investigator some five years after she has been absent from service over and over again the courts in the circuit have held that a discharge from employment does not constitute irreparable harm even where the discharge is close in time with the application in fact the few courts granting such relief have been reversed by this court moreover miss oliver has put forward no evidence that demonstrates that she has suffered any irreparable harm of any kind she is instead focused her briefs on her continuing perception that her terminations was unfair and she justifies her exceedingly late in time application because she believes that she discovered at deposition that the new york state police superintendent failed to properly follow regulations regarding is reviewing the transcript the testimony from her disciplinary hearing before he issued his decision responded contends however that miss oliver miss understands this regulation but  makes no difference the new york state courts have already ruled that the decision to terminate this all over after a full evidentiary hearing was supported by substantial evidence that she just cannot accept this fact rather she fixated by her belief that the at the appellate division erred rather than addressing the district court's reasoning which cites extensive precedent confirming the utter lack of any basis for injunctive relief where litigants seeks reinstatement following terminations this algor reproduces the same arguments and allegations relating to her conduct which had been repeatedly made and rejected at her hearing and in the many state court proceedings that have followed in short york state police which resulted in a of a luminous report of about one hundred and eighteen pages after the investigation she was offered the opportunity to with all the issues with a thirty day suspension she elected not to accept that and to head to a full and fair hearing by the state police here and board that was her choice and it was her right and she took it she was represented by counsel at the hearing she had the ability to cross examine all witnesses and bring pore through on evidence after the hearing it was determined that she was responsible and guilty for all charges against her they included among other things disobeying instructions falsifying the fischel business documents failing to file paperwork and declining to document activities that she was not properly participating go after the determination the board recommended her terminations and the superintendent accepted it is all over is working hard to exaggerate what she believes she determined after the deposition the superintendent going to go however she is assuming that and she have to explain that if cooper intended to make zero took additional time to review and analyze the transcript of the proceeding he would have not necessarily rolled in her favor and there's absolutely no evidence of that when she filed her article seventy eight titian which was a proper way to challenge and decision because the district court has taken the terminations out of the case that claim out of the case about you know she's being separated from her family based on her military service why would that count as a kind of irreparable injury in the complaint that would be the remedy would be to provide whatever money damages were incurred as a consequence of determination which may include back pay and other consequential damages i don't believe i've ever deposition took place in october of two thousand and eighteen and it was some four months later before miss oliver made her motion and according to the court based on prior precedent that's too long a period of time injunction issue is no longer before us is that is that what they're saying well judge i just wanted to point out to the court that the district court has as is the way we reviewed view the decision is  there was a claim that the decision to transfer mr oliver from one supervisor to another was retaliate tory there's a claim that mr oliver your duties were eliminated and that was that's correct and there are three claims of retaliation correct yes you're all right so let's assume for the argument re man the district court proceeds to a those four different plans is it not possible in principle and this all working to sail on want more of those four claims and as a result the remedy that she could ask for from the court would be reinstatement available well your honor i believe again that the decision by the judge relied on the fact that the factual findings have been supported by substantial evidence and confirmed by the  my premise here was your premise which is to say that there are four busy remaining claims which have not been adjudicated as a result of proceedings in the district court that is your position that  telling us that there are still four surviving claims before the district court and that right yes you're all right so let's assume for the argument on remember those four claims come before the district court what in your view is the appropriate for a seating before the district court reading that i assume it would  isn't reinstatement a potential remedy that she could seek and if not why not well i don't believe so your honor with all respect i  think that she would be able to obtain money damages certainly reinstatement i believe would be precluded because i think we need to review the law of the case which is that her terminations has been uphel dismissed this portion is because she's saying it's it's precluded the collateral estoppel prevent her from issuing a decision because she said that i know they're there that i have a high presented nothing to indicate that i didn't have a stolen spare opportunity to litigate the issues surrounding my terminations but i didn't find out that he that the superintendent never performed hear this but what i'm trying to understand is is there any amount of money that would compensate you in connection with this or are you insisting on a reinstatement bacterial job well sir i mean if i could work until i was sixty years old i was my coworkers made one hundred and eighty five thousand dollars last year they took all of this away from me and i  didn't do anything wrong so if they're going to give me i mean will they give me my salary that i'd list until i'm sixty years old not for retirement my pension all benefits and that and everything that you've i'm just going to walk back in the room with a smile on my feelings but i didn't do anything wrong in your honour's i want to make it clear that the district court only issued her decision because she said it was precluded but she didn't she wouldn't let me present the evidence that came to light as a result of the deposition that wasn't available at the time of my article seventy eight partition and if you look at the case involving the latino police officers association versus the new york city police department in two thousand and three they were they they were not barred from having those issues heard that just file this like this you have to put it in a proper motion to present it to the district court judge or she won't hear it i'm not an attorney and so i spent eight weeks i paid an attorney five hundred dollars i gave him the money and he sir can i just say one more thing yes please sir thank you very much i'd also like this court to know that i asked for a hearing because i was facing a thirty day suspension i have never been in trouble ever in but all i want to do is go back to work and then military members can be excused for up to five years and still go back to the state police so this five year doesn't