is precluded from any federal judicial review from of adverse employment action that's the real issue in this  service act was enacted they specifically excluded nafi employees now why they did that i'm not going to even guess i've looked in through the hearings and there's no specific use the word post terminations in this particular case there's a long history to why this case and why mr d c was term in but in any case he was given a notice the charges were not as they say specified in my brief the charges were not specific he didn't know what they were who they were made by or anything about it when we asked for that they gave us ninety pieces of paper ninety two pieces of paper by about fifteen employees who were interviewed as to things that happened doubtful now it seems like you're now you complained about the process so i guess the first question is  that categorically why is this situation different from blankenship you said blankenship got had some sort of process where your client did are you saying that your client as a matter of law had no process or that as a matter of fact in this case holding in that case does not obviate the reisa mr nigh d c or any other federal employee because we're in it the the fact that you're a federal employee blankenship is the bible then i think that the the then the and this this court has never addressed as the fourth in the third but different so why is that a difference that matters that's that's what we need for you to prevail in this case at least from my perspective you have to convince me that blankenship is just a totally different animal and procedures you're objecting to because it seems to me that they followed the personnel manual procedures but you'll saying that those procedures are inadequate and that's correct that's what you acknowledge that there were procedures the person who is the who hears the appeal from the post terminator appeal is the same person who terminate you so if if if if if if i were to be an employee of your owner and you decide to terminate me i can do not mean that that was the case because only i guess because he was has high office he was another words it's because the person who fired him was was the head of the operation because he was a fairly high up guy right for most people it would not be the same person fire  that the employee had no alternative remedies and also that he had a colorful constitutional claim well i mean here his claim is about the procedures so it's kind of circular to say you are not correct first of all it would never raised the issue of if i could have my notes never made i don't know that i was going to ask you that second but first i was trying to find out whether if it had been raised at the outset what it be a viable i don't believe it would first of all he did have a completely adequate remedy he had a right to rebut the charges against him he never did that that was that was pre term anation but that would term anation hearing he wanted to create his own administrative appeal process something different than what was provided and he said he basically said if i don't get what i want i'm not going to participate that is imagine how that could be a kind of a constitutional claim also with respect to post terminations remedies there is no reason it's complete speculation on mr hamish is part that this mrs williams would have been the th hearing officer here's how it works there is step one grievance to the base commander which is above miss williams the it's the base commander who picks the hearing officer it's complete speculation that miss williams would have been hearing officer and i want to add that if she was never raised in either one of the plaintiff's complaints in this case was only put by mr hamlisch in a brief it's a complete ball conclusion of counsel there's nothing in the record to support that and even and so then and the and the other thing is that the the commanding officer is not bound by the recommendations of the hearing officer the hearing officer would hear evidence they can cross examine witnesses he was entitled have a lawyer but the hearing officer would only make a recommendation which the commanding officer was not required to accept and then if in step two if he didn't like the conclusion of the base commander he could go to an individual in the headquarters of the navy in washington the so called sink and nine there might have been some confusion that because miss miss williams was the local and nine but she is certainly not the sink and nine and i'm sure mr hamlisch would agree with that but the big the real point here is that mr not disease never even asked for a post germination hearing and his claim seems to be premised on the idea that he had a constitutional right to a pre term a nation here that's not required under the loudermilk case and this is a point that i keep making but i have to make it again title five employees under c s r a are not entitled to a pre term anation hearing they're entitled to notice an opportunity to be heard and with respect to notice that mr hamlisch was not satisfied with the notice he was given ninety ninety two pages of documents which had all the information there's no reason why he couldn't if given a rebuttal he just chose not to because again he wanted to create his own remedy and that's that's just not the constitutionally required we can't just let every employee decide for themself what the remedy is going to be their administrative remedy and then say if i don't get it my constitutional rights have been violated i completely agree with the court that the blankenship case is dispositive  the court reporter is part of the accepted service under five us twenty one or three and that the employees are considered federal employees for some things but not for matters that are  presided over by the office of personnel management and that's five us code twenty one o five c actually mr mr and nor does he have more rights than the court reporter and in blankenship so there's he was on leave so that our access to anything pre term anation was virtually nil except what they provided us and they didn't even provide us with when and how these things