not hopefully be more effective the district court judge made a specific finding in this case that my client was an at will employee which is the prevalent law in the state in the data that we have to deal with all the time it's just not true and i don't know why he misconceive that other then my opinion as to why he must concede that is no one argued it this was a civil service employee a police officer there's an association contract it's actually included in a pelleas materials to you the excerpt of record and just for the record i'm sure you've already perused it because we argued in our br judge just either misunderstood or again i don't necessarily blame the judge because in the motion practice that occurred no one argued that he was an at will employee and we certainly didn't argue the he wasn't i think we all just presumed  that we knew he was an employee subject to a contract and just cause had to be found to terminate so the judge just really made a mistake in the initial classification is that well given that mistake given that the record is absolutely clear is my client was a police officer many years with this department his father his relatives this this is a police officer family he takes great pride in the ethical and moral responsibilities  package and various materials to get the job no investigation was done on his background package or the materially provided he was just hired many years later many years later after performing exceptionally as a police officer what to do about it and he spoke to his father a police officer and was basically informed you know you you have no choice even though he's a fellow officer and there's this idea of the blue code and we don't turn fellow officers  you have no choice he turned him in and absolutely nothing was done when he turned him in because it turns out this fellow shane a lot of these kind of a golden boy he's a favorite for many inappropriate reason after turning a man and all hell breaks loose my client is written up for things like going thirty miles an hour and a twenty five mile an hour zone he gets these reprimands these disciplinary proceedings ultimately they make this post facto determination that on his background investigation they had not been completely candid when he checked the box i had never used drugs in the past because he had acknowledged to someone else that yes as a a young man he had tried marijuana they utilize that and another piece of information about a military record to say that he had lied on his background check and that was grounds for termination that important point and certainly what we want to get in front of the jury and try is that even if that's so even if there are law is on his background package which could subject in determination we have many instances in this case through the depositions that have been taken that other officers who are currently employed have lied in worst case situations have been found to be liars and have not been terminated or disciplined specifically this character shane want who is where the trouble a property interest and he should have only been terminated if there was just cause that will not be just cause to be shown in this case and we will rule and that's i guess the point i'm making i'm kind of getting past w not what happened and that's a misrepresentation in appellate spray and that's why i've specifically mentioned mr shane a lot mr sheen lot also had a situation where he had a domestic violence police were called to his house he was actually seen battering his child and the police officer who was a cone player would not arrest him or deal with him properly because they were afraid if they dealt with mr lott in any fashion they went end up getting in trouble as my client did so this mr lot who had the obligation of providing my client with his procedural due process rights filing the appeals and perceiving through the administrative procedure mr lott didn't do that and refused to do it in regard to my client so that's the bright down as to why the procedural process didn't call followed that's why i brought up mr lott as an individual so we do have a legitimate reasons why my client was unable to effectively utilize relied upon that procedure and then as i say basically was burned by mr lott intentionally he also had specific statements from the sheriff and the sheriff has been deposed in this case the sheriff has testified that no matter what my client said he would be terminated there was nothing he could say that would get him out of terminations so we have a predisposition to chalmette he's not going to get any kind of independen terminations remedy or money it doesn't but it just shows the flavor of the environment in this very tight and small community so i think there are some issues in that regard but i think their issues will be able to overcome factually deputy louis had misrepresented his previous activities when he submitted his personal history statement they learned that as a result of mr lewis demeaning a new personal history statement to the nevada highway patrol in the year two thousand is not all that significant what happens is that when mr lewis signed his personal history statement he was told there's a penalty for falsifications in that if you falsify your answers on this deal you may be removed from consideration for an appointment and also asked the  application to the highway patrol they commenced an investigation to determine whether or not that was true mr lewis admitted to the investigator yes i did lie on those things and my concern was that if i told the truth i wouldn't be hired well one of the obligations that the sheriff's office if a defense attorney gets ahold of this sort of occasions as every statement in here is true to the best of my knowledge information and believe and i know that there's a penalty attached for making a false statement and i know that mr lewis falsified that statement intentionally may use the grievance process set out in the appropriate collective bargaining agreement mr lewis was a member of the sheriff's office some ploys association which did have a collective bargaining agreement with the with the county and their collective bargaining agreement provided that you and that's one of the obligations is to create a material issue a genuine fact that the sheriff had already made up his mind there is no evidence of that in the record that's simply an assertion that's been made by counsel the next step is that you are entitled to proceed to arbitration officer can request that the association pay for the cost that arbitration by of changing the the consent of the executive branch or the executive officer of the association's consent to pay for representative from the international brotherhood of police officers who they both came to the pre disciplinary hearing the second response that is there is the duty of fair representation by a union towards its members mr lott is not a member of the administration of the sheriff's office he is a member of the union he's the executive officer of the union it is his job as an officer of the union to support the officers in the association that mr lott didn't do what he was supposed to do on behalf of mr lewis well that' of fair representation to both the union and the employer on the underlying crime now whether that's true in public employee cases may be a different matter but the traditional  county doesn't make the decision as to whether the union is going to pay for that representation or not that's not the county's choice it's not their obligation that's something that's made available to the office and if you can convince the association that they ought to pay for it which neutral review by a neutral hearing officer the second one is the obligation was on the part of the union to represent mr mr lewis if there was a problem the fact that the union wasn't representing mr lewis wasn't the county's problem the county there is the steps to a provision in the state of nevada that authorizes every employee regardless of whether they're a member of an association or a or or not to  hearing prior to the time of this terminations he had the grievance process following the terminations that would have put him in front of a neutral arbitrator the only allegation that was made in mr lewis this complaint when he filed the complaint was that he wasn't notified of his right to appeal but he in fact exercise that right to appeal he had previously been the subject of a distillery disciplinary process that had gone clear to the neutral arbitrator and that disciplinary process had been up held by the neutral arbiter so mr lewis was well aware of his rights to appeal we responded with all the information in the most for summary judgment and there was absolutely no response from mr lewis as to what was the procedural defect in the terminations process there was no response at all and the opposition the most of our summary judgement so we're in and this is no this pleading i'm trying to read the opposition say well what possibly could we have here that's the problem with the with the procedure and there were a lot of vs city of berkeley that it's not required that you give a a an employee with the property interest a an unbiased decision maker at the pre term a nation hearing so even if we can even if we of contract and what we're looking at is the question of the procedures that were made available to the deputy lewis when his employment was terminated and so i think that just causes a different question from procedure due process and made in this case that has not been challenged on appeal he also said there was no violation of due process in the taking of the liberty interest from this deputy because number one there was no false statement that was made about deputy lewis that was a republican this circuit has not said that there is a substantive due process issue raised by a terminations of employment and that's that was the holding of judge taken in this case also so none of those issues have been raised on appeal the only issue this be for you is the question of whether there was a denial of procedural due process in the process that led to mr rules determination and i was we gave them notice we gave them the allegations we gave them the information on the allegations we gave them the  arbitration and that was where and so i you know i with all due respect i just fail to see a procedural due process violation and in that process or good morning your honour's i'm lewis miller i represent rod stewart and related parties with me this morning is my partner carrie garbus right i want to make a comment before i turn to the contracts and get down to it burden is to show that these kind this contract is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation and there are tribal issues of fact i stand here today having looked at the contract myself a magistrate judge looked at the contract opposing counsel looked at the contract and the district court judge looked at the contract and there are three different interpretations that the parties have come up with in writing the magistrate judge and i see this is