deposition isn't really timely is that any judge really point is that it wasn't he was given our particular spot and he did not respond at the time well he did respond at the time your honor i think the  hours at that point in time hondros finishes up his memo on thirty eight record thirty three nineteen and says that the on thursday of the cole failed to from september twenty sixth october fifth as a lab on wall we contacted your doctor's office door the cape the no we were disappointed to learn from the doctor that he only excused you from work until oct seventeen affidavit that we see that we were able to obtain from the doctor and from his nurse at the time and no one ever calls no one from precinct six call the interesting reasons essentially they've given for for the sudden change in this outstanding officers career the first change was according to the rapidly or was there a lot of this is that record forty forty three the skeleton says it wasn't that his performance deteriorated so rapidly it was that it was something that was so important to the off so that probably was of a gross after all in five when we get to the doctor back to the doctor to and i think that's twice delivered while she was on at them in l a that was not rejected according to policy but in the deposition mr gorton skids so that seems from the deposition record that he says that the doctor ordered the change to the twenty so the court has so in a way two years after this happened you heard about the old aeration yes now it was at the time of january twenty second that this alteration became more than simply what carlos that had been alluding to as we were disappointed it then became on january twenty second confirmed with the doctor's office i said and i said no not until after the fact and that's when they learned that it had been changed that it had been a seventeen and that it was by the doctor's office confirmed changed to a twenty seven we have we have the the alteration of not of the document but the alteration of the reasons determination if well if it's any significance to exactly what what you will see that the two recorded beings that the my client had with the different term he jones show have my client was asked to deliver information yet information provide information the other the other on record he showed my client brought in jones's attention as jones was asking him to get other corroborating evidence of protected in his conversations with the district attorney whether it's whether it's a crime that he's discussing or whether it's simply mouth pleased the second thing about the judge that is in his final  fourteen bordeaux two three the government code does not create a property right that holding has now been confirmed by the supreme court of texas in colorado county vs stay at which was issued in february of this year in the holding of rodin came i was recently confirmed by this court in belgium versus jefferson county that is an unpublished painting which was issued in january of this year so it's not limiting language in the legal case the texas courts finding that the harris county precinct one constables a policymaker is limited to that counties accountable for the specific purpose covered by the broader delegation observing if you will look at the defendant's reply to the plaintiff's response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment and that computers are a way point thirty fourteen and if you look at that reply you will regarding the rogue officer issue was definitely on going at the time of his term lation if you will look at our own way point twenty six zero one three you are saying eternit for twenty six zero one and twenty six zero three you will see that ongoing investigation of the road also issue mentioned in writing those two documents letters show you clearly the office was engaged in an ongoing investigation of what was he what has he done with respect to the contact with the conroe police department and looking into the question of who  you know with respect to the problem of the doctor's note i think that the evidence reflects the constable's office them that secretary hooley only note that she could find the file i suppose and sent it back to dover to and it was the original document with october seventeenth it didn't say october twenty seventh when they saw  did they drew the conclusion it must be an altered note i think when when this issue was being discussed with trot work there was some confusion perhaps in the mind of our trial lawyer department or not and when calling got some information from which he got in may of two thousand and thirteen he didn't report it to the constable yeah or the speed as the daily reports somebody or not but a more this is a very important to the constable and the investigation was still ongoing at the time of the terminations that's probably why it wasn't in the the final letter because they hadn't finished with  the with the with the business guarding liberty interest and of the name clearing hearing that he was called never given an opportunity and in terms of not not correcting them a time of discharge call well was and is bottom of the seventeenth was blocked off of going even on the premises he couldn't even go out there he had lost his ability to communicate with him and he bought out by e mail and he was prohibited by in under six fourteen which they never delivered to him the state law what happened at that is so it is not what counsel says i don't know what counsel is relying on my client went to the they never lived up to their hand of the martyr he still does honorably discharged he still couldn't get a job as a sort of on peace officer in texas they had never lived up to the mark and that's the way they did things off there in terms of the a business about they made a mistake and they really weren't so i think that still telling the trial good that my client was a forger and of forty one fifty three of the record of the hearing again were twenty the lead counsel he says well we have a we have a i thought it was clear that you checked with the doctor's office and found she says yes sir he said the doctor's office said they had not altered the date she says that is correct the courts asked and that was contemporaneously with the note or thereabouts she says yes sir i think that the evidence in the summary judgment is clear that there was no doctor's note that shows more proof there is no evidence that harris county had a reason to believe anything other than the client had sent in an altered doctor's note and investigation my god couldn't even take the job he's still still laboring under dishonorable ness in terms of the in terms of the this is a moral matter on and i think that it really  two thousand and two thousand and twelve there was a report that came in from the sheriff's county sheriff's department precinct six that there may have been a a a rogue officer a pretender out there on the reports from two women that said that they had been stopped but one of the women was very clear she said no that they were not and then when they were shown pictures by my client of of motorcycles and uniforms and