i understand and i know that oftentimes plaintiffs come to you when they complain that the court is not look you have this in the light most favorable standard that is looking at the nine  evidence because as far as i could tell from the briefs there's an awful lot of conjecture to prove what is the absolutely critical point just as well i agree that my client is unable to say when he spoke with sheriff dart i testify on my wife's behalf that never happen rather defendant even as the compliance officer the person who is responsible for overseeing shachtman process she's overseeing shachtman arbitration that the again that position would at some point consult with the second in command mr towne and of course the shark i realize that there isn't complaints for better or for worse are not an unusual event in chicago there are quite a few each year so why do we think that this would bubble all the way up to sheriff guards level or for that matter even m level there shachtman hearings people testify there's a process i hope they get resolved  constantly nose complaints his wife's you know did are you saying that that there's evidence in the record that shows that even delves into the witness lists for call shachtman there is not evidence in the record that he delves however i would assume that as the compliance officer he was aware of a shock and proceeding that he would at least take a cursory look that he would have some sense of the complaint the nature of the complaint the basis of the complaint and that one of the witnesses is a high ranking commander as commander consulate you know these are all unfounded assumptions there isn't any evidence to support them judge i hear you i hear you loud and clear but i think in my opinion in my client opinion it's logical to assume that the sheriff and who's second in command and his compliance officer would be aware that my client testify  i i hear you if i may and the other problem you know it's not that either the sheriff or mr reagan has nothing to do but monitor the shachtman process these are the secu department in cook county and these are people with a lot of responsibilities which really just sort of drills in that that if we had some evidence that there were interventions by these people that would be one thing but without any evidence i don't think we can make that as a judge we have circumstantial evidence of things happening you know we don't we have circumstantial evidence of two things we know that officer counseling no did was not in fact detailed to the f b i and we know that there was a move from the boot camp to the division eleven part of the right of the jail and by themselves those are things says a lot of people could say about themselves and maybe a lot of people were interested in being detail to the f b i and they weren't detailed either and the moved to a different section which as far as i can tell you the record does not tell me that this was a  less favorable from the point of view of salary or anything made people life boot camp better i'll go with that that's what the record shows they had staffing needs in eleven i understand the judge you i'm not sure that somebody saying i'm qualified for this job in the employment context is ever taken to be conclusive that you're qualified or even enough to raise an issue of fact he was not in the the law enforcement side of things he was in the correctional officer side of things i realize he has other qualifications he has his background the marines he has those things but he appears to have gone outside the regular process knew consolations from having served with consular in the military it was clear from agent types testimony that command a consulate was sought because of his top secret clearance it made would make it easier for him to come to the f b i as essay haneke makes very very clear in her report there is not a protocol the county puts an emphasis on just nonexistent protocol and that's where i sense your honor may have may have the sense that he went outside of protocol but there isn't protocol nasa can and makes it clear that there isn't protocol the f b i want to constantly  and all the while they've backed off when they're told that there's a problem with the detail you are i don't see it that way i don't see the f b i backing off i think there's a lack of clarity as to what happened in the end is that it is as if everything this went silent no one really knows what happened each of the agents who testified testified that they were looking forward to working with the consulate know if that consulate a was in fact qualified to work with so this is all circumstantial evidence i understand now when somebody has one of these details the sheriff's office is still paying that person's salary just anybody and curtis director on just about that that is correct  and so the sheriff's office indicates i know i read this someplace in the briefs that they need to feel that this is going to be some benefit to them corrects for correct the detail not just that the detail is something that the individual  him or herself would lie which is why from the law enforcement side having somebody go and work couple of years with the f b i might really develop skills and maybe less so even though we can assume the f b i would have loved to have had  but it's a two way street you are i do believe the record shows that even from on the correctional side consulate all could have gone from the f b i to economy intelligence unit and i think that's would be qualified for a position in the counterintelligence office even as a correctional officer the county has been unable to provide an answer as to why commander counseling was not permitted to store the f and i understand why is that their burden i mean they certainly need there there needs to be some evidence to show that it was an impermissible reason but in general they can decide either to send somebody or not to send somebody or send somebody different it's it it's not like you have a right to go on i understand this but considering that there were depositions many people safir depositions there was a great deal of discovery we know that the sheriff's department simply didn't do things this time the way that things would typically be done and that is here's a qualified person the f b i wants him and do we know that his position was filled ultimately the f b i detail i don't recall you  circumstances would be accepted because of his past experience especially as top secret clearance but suddenly the offer was withdrawn no explanation from mr consul in a way it's round perhaps a year and a half essay hannon does an investigation she concludes the original protocol the county's position is he violated the protocol and that's why he never got to the f b i and there just isn't evidence that he violated p as counsel for mr constantly no just stated there was a fool work up of discovery in this case over years worth at the conclude of which the plague of submitted one thousand one hundred thirty five pages of discovery to the dish or after reviewing those one thousand plus pages the district court concluded correctly in our opinion that there's no evidence that the defendants either knew about the shechtman arbitration or that mr constantly no had testified in the second arbitration nor is there any evidence that any of the defendants were personally involved in either denying him his detail to the f b i or his involved in his transfer from the boot camp to division timing is simply not enough to get past summary judgment in particular in the whole case of this court said that if you're going to rely on the timing argument you have to the alleged retaliatory months later so in april early april the record shows a consul you know asks the sheriff about the status of his request to join the task force and i think at that point the sheriff says i have no chance to complete paperwork or reason mr harrington never did that and by early may even tells consul you know the f b i has rescinded an offer so i guess at some point there's word that there is willingness on the f b i s part to assistant special agent in charge it's paid in they had a conversation ways and pagan had a conversation that was essentially that the procedure for identifying someone and potentially detailing someone to the f b i was not followed furthermore mr pagan learned that discussing leno was a correctional officer not a police officer so based on that conversation mr ways took away from the conversation that mr pagan was rescinding the request he conveyed that's mr egan who then conveyed it to mr town all that occurred roughly in in la shachtman and also comply with the employment many of those are his those are his two areas so it's not just shachtman it's not it's not just that all of the regulations that pertain to the sheriff's office that's correct that's correct and so what's what's important march of this year that case is very very similar to the case at bar in the grill it's a first amendment retaliation claim a police officer in orland park claims that he attended a public meeting of account board meeting made some statements that he believes angered his superiors and that they have been surely retaliated against him by terminate what's what's interesting is is the parallels the district court although we concluded that there was no evidence that any of the defendants that mr a grill suit even knew that he had testified at that hearing and that's very similar to the case of bar where each of the defendants denies knowing about this the shack and hearing or that or mr costin your testimony relies on i'm his that sort of a must have known argument just as plaintive does here so rather than evidence he provides speculation  it's the directors who conducted the movements of commanders around the so this would be the director of the boot camp and the director of eleven correct and that's sat down or at least we're supposed to infer that they sat down and said let's shift i  and so the directors had a meeting and the directors decided operationally that these moves would occur that's that's what the record likes and so on then you're left with with just a a complaint was made in july of twenty twelve the transfer occurred fifteen months later in october of two thousand and thirteen similarly there was a complaint made with the office of inspector general in detail that would be covered by the employment plan or one zero zero zero or some other kind of simon and it appears that the detail which lasts ninety days or less has to be approved by the sheriff so if that's no two year assignment to the f b i which is paid for by the sheriff's office couldn't a reasonable jury infer that if the sheriff is involved in approving ninety day details that the sheriff would also be typical one that the office usually puts forward the person after doing a cost benefit analysis and i think what happened here is it is undisputed in the record that mr cassel lino is a correctional officer we've never detail about a correctional officer is a commander we've never sent a commander works at the boot camp we've never sent someone i'm guessing that he yes that's yes a few minutes so c c i saw that the acronym for the sheriff's department the sheriff's department has a set of waters refer to a scene so seven j one says that the only know it begins it begins with the ninety day detail but then you have to go to see two and see two explains it at the details in excess of ninety days that there is a procedure that has to be followed and then that implicates duties for the compliance officer so the sherpas you only person the only person who could have approved the detail but what about mr patterson sorry if you meant that it never got that far along you know that the sheriff isn't going to be it had to evolve in should be proud and happy that the f b i thinks that the cook county sheriff's department should be able to work alongside the f b i there was only one chair one sheriff who was detail and i'm not sure there was someone before before him i'm not i don't believe there was a great history of sheriff's deputies being detail to the f b i this is a big deal this is sure darts moment he gets to say he has one of his officers working in the f b i if i think my colleague meant to say mr waves and i think he said mr welles and i just want to make the record clear on that mr ways his declaration speaks to what he believes is the process for a detail and spe to what he believes is the process of the details with this or else that in ninety days but i call the court's attention to what has been marked as plaintiff's exhibits fifty and fifty one docket eighty seven which show rule seven last and final i understand the timing can't always get me to first base or even get me home run but i do believe that humphrys is helpful in this case and that humphreys says to this court that it needs to look at the facts and circumstances in each case so it's not that this court has ever said it has to be in a few weeks or it can't be you know more than sixty days and that's essentially what i have to offer and i hope that the