narratives as to why these employees were discharged and i asked prior to show today that the record below shows that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to show conflicting narratives for the forgery jury to that they would have been terminated for other reason or less in other words they can show him on healthy defense for purposes of this appeal that this record did not find him unhealthy the fans and to this record can see that three of the four elements the persons responsible for terminating your clients knew the political affiliation of each person terminated it most direct evidence that we have is that they were hired by private by their prior defendant knew the political affiliation of the persons who were terminated there is nothing in the record that show was to provide evidence other than the fact that they've been hired to the last administration  at all but none but just on their political affiliation what circumstantial evidence is there beyond the fact that they were hired in the last administration and fired in this administration well in the new pas this case yes and i thought he says maybe but misreading the record plainly most important plaintiff must evidence that at the time of adverse employment action defendants were aware of each individual's political affiliation other evidence supporting that's the first order issued by the district court dismissing the case against three of the defendants which was the governor and the first lady and the chief of staff in that sense the court stated specifically that there was no evidence that summary judgment summary judgment record i should conclude that there is simply no evidence of knowledge and as to that i would like to point out that in the prior appeal this court read amended complaint to find and found that there were possible allegations  those positions were field by and i just go back to the two orders just so i understand what what it is that the district court did and what we would then be reviewing so the the first order says that as to three of the defendants the reason why so is granted there's no evidence record that those three defendants knew the political affiliation of the persons fired and there's no finding the question of whether if they had known there was evidence that the motivation for firing them was now part of what ground are you asking us to affirm summary judgment on the grounds that the district court gave or a different broader ground that none of the defendants knew the political affiliation of anyone and that none of the defendants were but not none that the summary judgment and none of the plaintiffs were able to support any all the allegations that were there were serious allegations in the complaint and they were asked about those allegations in the position and they could not identify any conversation with a friend once every guarding  or whether the standard is altered at all because of but usual location that we're talking about for these employees i do believe that there's  of the other side you're not making any argument that because these are employees of the governor's mansion relatively strict standard against political discrimination the other was a pause is somehow reduced here and there was the same strict limitations on political firing the firing employees at the department you think applies equally strongly in the case of employees at the government given the level of employees that we're talking about any evidence that that was no not the workplace by the friends that is simply not enough i believe so yes it's three seven seven if third eighty one