because i did not have standing to bring those claims in my first lawsuit i'm arguing in the third quarter name of that rejecting my generalization for the civil service job in new york was a violation of the equal protection clause because i was rejected f making statements that civil servants are allowed to make and i don't see any rational reason why not because reject it was saying something that a civil servant is allowed to say but obviously i could not bring that argument until i had them until i became rejected civil lines and you don't dispute that what was done in south dakota and with a court of whatever was proper was found by the first case you could be opportunity not me and it's just the law you have your opportunities along with your isp provider you have your opportunity to raise the point and it's the same point you're raising again you could have raised it in that second issue you didn't do it i could have sued both of us in the c p p in that second lawsuit if i had wanted to yes you're right about that but in that second lawsuit i was talking about something that was in my opinion anyway completely irrelevant to the decision to reject my truck at location for the new york civil service job i was talking about why i believe the reason for the rejection of europe was that the position in the civil service job was what happened in south dakota  and it's the first job action against you that you continue to contest and you should have raised could have raised that in the second your failure to do so and the dismissal precludes you from trying again it just can't go on and on and on you had the opportunity and you agree you could have raised it in the second lawsuit didn't do it and this property across government government warns we have case law that says what i think it was a separate the same idea is that first action against you you can't take a piece here in a piece there on a piece here and keep following losses and you clearly had an opportunity in that second lawsuit to raise it and you didn't i don't know whether or not the district court was right with respect to roast your grotto with relation to the first lawsuit there's no doubt that you missed on the second and we can reduce your honor i think that it's a different cause of action when or see negligently handles my complaints about being fired and when see he rejects much of a vocation for a different job in new york i think those are two different causes of action so i don't think i had a mistake i could have brought it up in the second lawsuit if i had wanted to make that million larger and more on really lawsuit but i didn't want to do that i thought about it but i decided not to because i didn't think it was necessary it's somebody punches me in the face on january first and then does it again on february first i consume both those two and spaces for the new york the basis for the new york rejection was the south dakota action it was the government's belief that i'm a certain type of person that they don't want to hire based on the south punch me in the face of the cern suit because it's because of my race it's not the way we allow you to proceed the whole thing is that the punch in the place is the basis for every one of your actions  well i don't know the details of the particular case i know in my particular case the government had no obligation to reject my application the old statute no regulation said they had to do it they simply decided to do it because of a policy and if we're talking  something such as the harrison vs norton case that was referred to but really was relied upon very heavily by the district court i think that's a distinction there in person versus norton we had a really annoying point that we just kept piling the same application over and over and over again you can't you agree that you can't challenge the basis for their firing you original decision to fire right that if that is recorded correct what is what was decided by the circuit well only two firing you violate the equal protection clause that clearly arises out of the same facts and circumstances as the argument that they couldn't have been you could've been fired in the first amendment right you couldn't file a lawsuit today yes no i could do you agree with that right so you're precluded from challenging validity when let's limit ourselves to the constitutional court of the now the constitutional validity of the the constitutional validity of not hiring you for sure it is isn't it whatever rights you had because you were already in place would you have even less rights as somebody who's trying to be hired  firing you is acceptable because now you can't challenge it doesn't that law for shoring mean that you can't challenge your hiring because your only argument is they didn't hire me for the same reason that they fire britain and you are assisting the united states you can't come back in and say in a second suit i can't be taxed because i'm a citizen of britain unless you can prove something new like i've suddenly become a citizen of britain you have government with the government's arguments brief them on i know but his argument is that he wasn't hired for unconstitutional reason the argument that was decided was he wasn't fired on constitutional right he couldn't obviously have been in he couldn't on the notion that he was fired in broccoli and that is what he cannot do that is the one way that he cannot challenge the failure to hire by saying that the only reason for the core reason is that  collection procedure a claim that the way you're trying to collect this debt is improper that could not have arisen in the first action which was the bankruptcy proceeding itself because they hadn't tried to collect the debt yet the creditor hadn't tried to collect but the time i thought that the negligence of always seeing investigating my complaints was a totally different events than the government's refusal to hire me for the new york civil service job i considered suing about them both at the same time but i just decided that would make the case to one  only and i'd like to say that emphasize again what i'm saying here is that every single time a person applies for a civil service job i think that's a new cause of action just like every time a person pays a tax it's a new cause of action especially in my case when the government they told me to go take a drug test they told me to separate the background investigator it did cost me a small amount of money in time so i think the government was doing something in this hiring process when they ultimately rejected me for their questions tha