slate rather than reconsidering the prior oath and opinion from a prior notwithstanding this conference this morning with respect to the district court case which directly addressed the issues of sexual points which apparently were of concern to at least another can go but only only issues in your briefs and in this case i assume are before the family or did i missed something here the prior briefs are before this panel the supplemental briefing which of course was carried out by the direction of this battle has also before the court again however so far just a high point so to speak i want to address these particular issues that were apparently found to be dispositive b at the northern marianas college if the response is sluggish in other words if the administrative agency is incompetent lazy does not follow their own regulations which in fact happen speak up until public and third that she would get private counseling so that she could recover and everything would be ok after that period after that period the university like what should the university have done the university should have taken completely one they should've taken him away from any other female students to they should have had a hearing while she was still at school they could of had a feeling within the timeframe provided by the sexual harassment regulations which is essentially thirty days she was in school and they could have done it they could have done it maybe they could've done it jubal they could've done in what do you mean by that i remember reading that she had trouble getting a lawyer are you saying that the school is trying to say it was her fault because she was saying i can't get a lawyer that was that the lady that's my understand was there a delay and what's in the record puting or had a hard time going through this whole story with one lawyer after another with this and they would do something about that she had a lawyer but then she decided to get another lawyer that's true she you hired one individual and then  is that she moved to the mexico and couldn't get back there's nothing in the record to make it seem she moved at the end of the semester the record i believe reflects sometimes towards now i'm trying to understand this argument she she did leave and go to new mexico now i've corrected in listening to you you think she should have been there during the hearings but they could have had the hearings without her was she  did i understand but as i understand deliberate indifference is that the colleges in dover deliberate indifference to to your clients and what happened to her what difference does it make if he was punished then was there something going on in between are you saying that if they would have done something maybe she would have stayed at the college i don't quite understand that sure they promised america that she would get counseling which was the most important and that the individual anything she left she had to leave because she knew she was going to be harmed again there was no question in our mind about that because it happened and the university was doing absolutely nothing about it i want to turn to the confrontation in the bathroom because i know that is that is the ugly even if they've taken actions injunction or whatever if you want to get near he would have done it he might have breached some law or or or restriction but i wondered if you want to dress your state walk claims that all yes part of the claims being one of them and you know that we can dismiss certain claims but the action is still pending earthquake was dismissed even though the action was pending didn't you have thirty days to do to appeal from that time no your honor that claim you may have and and maybe that was confusing or if there's nothing in the record this is a hearing till i get it so there's not a lot of because if you do to force the issue with a hearing we would have that issue here but that apparently started the record i think that's right system right now i'm not aware of any decision according to the well or no i don't know i we don't we haven't looked at the docket but there could be other cases like yours floating and so if we decide to still a case of first impression on your particular point right i don't know i don't know if a depressed i'm talking about medical evidence you're talking some sort of psychological theory here that that because her injury was not addressed by the hearing therefore her psychological problems continue that sounds like an expert opinion