points that i'd like to address today and for that reason the one about this i mean we live in a somewhat terrifying world i guess i would say including let's forget whether there was a knife there was not even get into that just why is it now or text that communication not enough to justify everything that happened afterwards and you know whether it's the brother getting to actually testif live or submit the statement in writing and i'm just i must tell you i have a hard time getting over that so at least for me that's really help me not be so preoccupied with it i agree with you completely it the substance of the text message in question is regrettable to say the least at the same time i also agree with you we do live in an increasingly frightening  world that text message or tweet rather i don't stay up on the the social media as i should is not a threat aimed particularly at any you today to see or in and of case it seems to me it's a matter of that i accept your honor under the the point one of the points that i'd like to make is that the picture of due process that's been painted here in the school setting is this rigid set you know this rigid construct but the actual you know underpinning test if you look at any of the  cases the school discipline cases that the defendants have cited in their brief there's always or in the vast majority and certainly in gas versus lopez there's a discussion of that three prong balancing test in mathews versus  and frankly i apologize to the court i feel i probably could have done a better job in briefing that portion of the case both below and here but i doubt it i doubt it well thank you i appreciate mean  you've got this tweet and it says these things where is there a case i mean i can't imagine what would happen to this school district had they not done exactly what they did i mean all hell would have broken loose but here's here's the disconnect as far as i'm concerned with the case there's a difference and i think it is an inherent quality of our whole system of  inherent disconnect between guilt and and absolute certainty of guilt but you know and processing that's right she never did but that that's part of the problem she never denies this is her it is correct that she did you know she there's a written statement from my client admitting that she made the tweeting question but also say there's no assertion by the defendants in the record below that on the basis of that tweet alone she was submitted their contention or she was first suspended and later expelled their contention has always been and the briefs on appeal continues to be that the reason she was suspended and expelled was for bringing a knife to school and threatening to stab another student with it there's never contended that it was the tweet that was the basis for that action and my my can tell when it's wrapped up in it well my contention would be applying some sort of a harmless error type standard to a case like this so you think the case comes out differently in terms of suspension and expulsion if lots and lots of due process clarify there was no actual knife well i think that the case the eventual expulsion and suspension aren't actually the deprivation that's at bar it's the lack of process itself that's actionable it's the fact that  art for instance in our criminal courts you know someone we can have video surveillance confession you can have any number of governance demonstrating that someone is  guilty and yet we still for them process it's part it's a fundamental underpinning we bring a process claim we also demand if you can show a process problem that there was prejudice you don't have process victories in the abstract you have process victories connected to some prejudice to the individual and i i do understand that here i would argue that the prejudice that was suffered by my client was the fact that she was not afforded the process she was due legally and the it was a bit of a bootstrap isn't it well the point that i would like to call to the court's attention is as i make clear in the briefs you know there are two different deprivation you know that we can point out here there's the suspension the the defendants have hammered away as well they should you know as the father of two daughters myself i agree school safety is a compelling governmental interest you know under matthews versus aldridge and i'll be forthright and admit as between the two deprivations the suspension stage is is by far the weaker claim however that same governmental rationale you know under that three prong balancing test first of all the private interest that's in stay at stake here is the worst possible and i can see i can see where you're going with that but at the same time it is this is the worst deprivation the school board had at its disposal but even if you go to your process claim it  seems to me that the student got all the process she was entitled to under the guise she knew what the charges are there's no case that says she gets to read the actual statement there's no cases says she actually gets to know the name of the accuser for obvious reasons in a school setting she doesn't she has the right to a hearing she got a hearing she is no right under the case law to say that she's that she has to be told she gets an attorney or that she gets to appeal it just seems to me that you're taking gas and you're reading all kinds of due process rick basic requirements that apply in a traditional out of school setting you're reading that into gas and i can't find any authority for that well what i say the response i have to that is that first of all many of the citations in the defendants in my analysis of the law due process and gosho has an extensive analysis of th it is a flexible moving standard it is that balancing test and it defers the process that's due is informed by the deprivation it's informed and so the defendant cite cases like flame vs medical college of ohio so here you have a professional school student being dismissed for largely academic reasons and they say well that's controlling authority in this case what is your best argument in terms of the lack of due process of the various claims that you make the best argument in my mind another way what's the worst thing that they did or failed the worst the worst thing is clearly the expulsion process and in my mind what the primary thing i would ask this court to delay it when it's delivered into question the practice is everything from the start to the beginning to the end what's the worst thing that happened after she sends the tweet to the fact the school board says you're outta here the school board repeatedly you know and we have record evidence to support all of this the school board repeatedly the superintendent repeatedly told the family  client they would all be permitted to attend the hearing they would all be permitted to speak at the hearing this is the issue on the brother yes that's the only person that was allegedly excluded that should have been included and also an open hearing and  the way there is for a closed hearing now it is true at the recommendation of the superintendent after meeting with the superintendent the superintendent recommended to the family you know what given the history here i think it would be in your best interests to request a closed hearing he then he subsequently wrote a letter to the family saying we've looked at our policies and this is in the record you can't have a closed hearing this is going to be an open public hearing and in any event when he again this is in the affidavits when he told them about this idea of the closed hearing it was still with the promise but don't worry you can all still attend you can all speak which is that should have been an open hearing you want the public to be sitting in a us that's that's unimaginable to me but is it that or is it that the brother should have been there it's the fact that in the end the end analysis here in my mind of this case is that the court below accepted the defendant's definition of due process in the school discipline setting which is some kind of notice and some kind of hearing just want to know your best claim that apparently it's the nature of the school board hearing up not the stuff that happened before that that's your best play that's correct and it should have been an open hearing right i'm less concerned how are you prejudiced by the fact that you didn't have all the members of the p t a there railing against this you're on class i'm less concerned with the open hearing aspect of it than i am with the fact that the procedural rules have been made clear to my client and her family and literally at the very last moment before the hearing the school know the brother wanted to read a statement he wasn't able to do that but the statement was read that's correct and supposedly the brother might have been offering exposed evidence but the only evidence that he had is he didn't see a knife when he picked her up from school so how on earth can that be a procedural due process violation or even if it is how can it not be harmless error when he doesn't even come forward to say what he would have said and at best he would have said he didn't see a knife which has nothing to do with whether she actually had a worse still though than vat is the fact that's is explained in the affidavits in the brief the fact that the family explained to the school district who had promised that this young man who is much older college educated the best spoken individual in the family that he had prepared their case he had written  statement he was the person that was their acting as her representative and she did pursuant to the school board's own policy she had a right to counsel i see that my time is expired if i could just finish answer  lushly she did have a right to counsel pursuant to school board policy they had promised that he would be able to attend and at the very last moment they say no he can't it's not going to be open session it's going to be close action and there is six circuit precedents sense in reading this is that he would have been a more articulate spokesperson for the family than the family was themselves is that what this distills down to zero far far more so and it also is the fact that that minimal time period of notice literally informing the family of this when they showed up to the hearing gave them absolutely no opportunity to to prepare in any other way what's the argument they would have made with my time while and that's the thing conveniently for them to find and you know this is a or we don't know what would have happened and that's true we don't know what would have happened if the brother had been allowed to attend and we and we never will i'm just saying with more time with the brother attending as opposed to cementing a written statement what's the added information that would come out behalf of the school district in its employees i'll be very brief i think the issues are pretty clear in this case to make clear the brother had testified twice in two previous hearings to the superintendent and the assistant principal it is contained in the mother's affidavit paragraphs eight and eleven which is on page eighty four and five in those two paragraphs the mother states that the plaintiff the mother and the brother all explained their side to the system principal then the superintendent and the second opportunity before the superintendent they were informed in writing twice that expulsion was on the table so there is the plaintiff has been identified what additional information he would have provided had he been there at the expulsion hearing other than to read the statement there would have been no additional exculpatory evidence to help out the plaintiff there was no harm from this there is no due process violation one other thing i want to get  recalling that the claim before the district court was that he would have been able to read the statement more articulately than the father was and that the additional argument wasn't made that by the way and he would have gone beyond the statement and said other things in my recalling that  i think that is right that he would have just been able to read this statement in a more clear manner that was if there wasn't anything additional that he would have added to the testimony at least this is the issue is framed at the district court correct the other thing that needs to be made clear the punishment that she received it's not a huge deal but just for the sake of accuracy when the plaintiff's expelled on march sixth also it means under the michigan school code if she cannot continue republican cation at that particular school building she is still entitle to continue our public education in a michigan school and in fact on march eighth the superintendent sent the plaintiff a letter outlining her rights the continuing education an alternative education high am i right that at the district court the issue with the brother was only whether he could have read it better not what else he might have said no that's not correct it it's one of the things that the defendants state as undisputed in their brief but if i or if i read your briefs at the district court you complained about not being able to read it and not being able to otherwise assist exactly ok us most able advocate that's what we'll go look at and so there's that point the the final thing that i would like to just bring to the court's attention is that the the version of due process that this court is being asked to uphold here and that the defendants have spelled out that that that some kind of notice and some kind of hearing that argument in my mind is remarkable in its breath and it's synonymous with any kind of notice and any kind of hearing even if it's a very severe done probation and school discipline and so what i would what i would ask is that the court in reviewing the expulsion proceedings particularly ask what was the governmental interest why was it necessary to exclude the brother what was there other than maybe five or ten minutes of their time why couldn't they allow him to attend the hearing there hasn't been a rationale offered and finally this actually is sort of aside from the arguments of the merits today exhibits primarily in the defendant's exhibits but also in exhibit submitted by the plaintiff there are minor children's names that were not properly redacted and so i would ask this court and if the court would would like me to to draft a written motion and submit it i certainly will but whatever order this court heard about the opinion our opinion not so much the opinion but in terms of sealing those exhibits because they haven't been redacted it's not just parties it's also nonparty names of minors and i apologize i don't know how that occurred in the court below but it's on both sides and so if i