never had any disciplinary issues he had an unblemished record he grew up in melrose park as well his complaint federal court alleging due process and equal protection violations was dismissed and the twelve the six decision involved the issue of whether or not he was entitled to due process before being terminated because as i'll address later on in the argument there constitution while the supreme court in louder no help that an employee has a right to due process before terminations regardless of how robust it to the extent the administrative proceedings are considered robust which is another issue but an employee has a right to the minimum due process protections before germination in this case mr community allege that they tribunals was biased and what we and his complaint he alleged that the attorney for the board was axed parte providing case law concerning the main issues in this case to the prosecuting attorney and there are other communications as well ex parte between the prosecuting attorney and the board attorney the board is part is counsel of the truce counsel to the board he's part of the board and they have i like that the board members themselves engaged in any improper communications well the counsel for the board or under illinois law is considered part of the board i mean that's he's he was part of the  board and for i'm sorry the council a member of the board well the counsel is the attorney is providing legal advice to the board and under illinois law is considered part of the board and that was that i don't ask you that i am again going to ask you is cal saw a word i don't know he's not a board member he's not a remember so the facts are alleging the complaint was were that there were these acts her take communications between the counsel for the board and the prosecuting attorney there was not the ruling on the motion to recuse either the panel or the the attorney or the prosecuting attorney was complete was denied without argument there was it was summarily denied and then the board went on to having hearing with one witness mr even even from testimony that wasn't disputed was drawn against mr clean so in the complaint we argued that in the complaint we allege that all this evidence is evidence of a sham proceeding and that he was denied due process this court and checked first as wisconsin department of corrections recognized that on a motion to dismiss where there is allegations of that nature the case should proceed discovery should take place and then at a later date when all the evidence has been obtained to fully explore the issues the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to find bias or not find bias but this complaint alleged from the the attorneys some case law to help a prosecuting attorney case law to help them prosecute a case and i don't believe under u s supreme court decision in this court's decision decisions that that is a fair trial that's not a f hearing and under loudermilk he's entitled to the minimum protections of due process before terminations it's not ok to say ok he didn't get it you know but we'll make up for it and the back and louder mill is very clear terminations of employment is a very very significant event it upright somebody of their livelihood and they have a right to have due process before now one of the other errors in the court's decision was at the court determined that mr peachey was not entitled to due process before terminations under the supreme court's random and an authorized analysis but that analysis has been limited to very special cases where there is no state procedure to govern the deprivation and where the government has no way to predict that a deprivation will occur it's been reserved for cases where the supreme court has said and this is a quote it's impossible for the government to predict that there will be a deprivation it is not under the controlling case law which in this case is  the random unauthorized is not appropriate where the deprivation occurs through through a government proceeding now the lower court i believe in and  of have done this have said that well the abuse of discretion is not predictable the government couldn't predict that the board's counsel would be you know that kind of thing would be doing these kinds of things or ignoring the law but the supreme court in zimmerman said that's not the focus the focus is whether the deprivation could be predicted to occur not whether the misconduct the abuse of authority by the government official was unpredictable because we had almost always going to be unpredictable so cinnamon is controlling here and this court he has has followed  there's a state procedure but the official abuses its authority and that wasn't protected so in this case whenever there is a state procedure under general zimmermann whenever there's a state procedure and there is abuse of due process it is not random and unauthorized and zimmerman is very clear on that point the court but the court just said it's random on unauthorized i think because the conduct was not predictable that he would abuse that the panel would abuse its authority and the third basis for overturning this is the equal protection claim the court found that mr commutes you become was not entitled to equal protection in the employment context the seminal supreme court decision and that is inquest inquest versus oregon department of agriculture mr cooney she was not an at will employ nietzsche was protect it from arbitrary terminations by state law he could only be terminated for costs mr cooney she was not terminated because of your sort of typical you know discretionary you know i don't think you you know who took up the whole was right or i don't like the way he was terminated based on an ordinance based on a lot the inquest case what they're trying to do there is balance equal protection rights in employment and the case must clear that when you go to work for a public employer you don't leave your constitutional rights at the door you bring them in and they ply at work that they that they put paper weight and they put importance on at will and they said because it's not will we're not going to apply apply equal protection here and they went on and said you know in this in this case in this context and caveats about this case but the whole case was about one that it was a at will and balancing equal protection against at will and two it was about that it was a discretionary termination not based on an ordinance or a law like in the whole it decision which is another supreme court decision that we addressed in the briefs and includes court talked a lot about all it in all it a single person brought an equal protection claim against their village because the ordinance was not being applied fairly that he was a terminated because of his ruse and see he was terminated because of his lack of residency is what they said but what but that is not a subjective tast they apply objective criteria that they are that what a creature they looked at was where did the sleep where did his family live where was his property that's objective criteria in the inquest decision goes through similar cases where there's an ordinance which may at first blush appear to be discretionary but the criteria that's looked at is subjective criteria and the court said because it's objective criteria and it's  ordinance equal protection does apply that was all a and the cases other cases that are addressed an inquest now in this case you know we're saying that they have same kind of criteria there are people that work for the fire department and still work for the fire department we as we understand it who don't even live in a one way their families live in wisconsin or they live in other towns far away and they're still there because of their relationship their business dealings with the mayor there are still there but mr cooney she was terminated and this this court has this major in mind are acknowledged that inquest is talking about not cases with ordinances and discretionary decisions like i have one minute left so thank you may please the court austin lawyer he told his story and he testified for about three years he slept every night in or on park not in the village of mills park after his terminations he filed an action under the illinois ministr review act for those reasons he's unable to successfully put any constitutional claims against the village the district court's decision to grant our motion to dismiss was proper and this  time period part of his i mean when with when was the village or whatever it is aware of his living somewhere else sure so some time i believe around two thousand four thousand or two thousand and fifteen the village started investigating residency violations of its police officers and its firefighters in general they were doing they were general investigating it ok that incident when they ran across his name it what stage of the termination was how long before he was actually terminated at but approximately two thousand and sixteen they call a man they say hey what's what's going on we think you live out we think you live out of town ask you some questions after that brief interview then they give a written charges and then he's presented with the written charges he's ought to retain his lawyer and then he has the hearing and for the board of fire police where he's a lot to present his case where he's given the opportunity to state his story explain why he should and sixteen yes ok so it's not that in hindsight he kind of was this was going on for three years is that what you're saying he did it he had this is the testimony of mr kenny g from the hearing he admitted that from two thousand and thirteen to two thousand and sixteen that he slept every night and the orland park home and not the village and also park residence this he then deigns some kind of residence in the basement of the house that he rented gave or whatever to somebody else another family that was his way to try to comply what he thought was complying with the residency words ob he rented out the he rented out the the house he had space available suppose in the basement but he never slept there and he was collecting rent besides the preacher maisha requirements loudermilk require some sort of post terminations procedures here the illinois ministry review act provided key with the post deprivation remedy that is required under the  maker at a pre term a nation hearing doesn't violate due process as long as there is an adequate post operation hearing by an unbiased decision maker and that's the miccolis case that this court decided and the facts in the case are very similar that dealt with better for park and there was a hearing before the board the board of trustees and that case the plaintiff alleged the board was spice against them and this court said clearly that a by suspicion maker and a preacher whole record and one of the things you're allowed to bring in is bypass so this was addressed and they gave were given an opportunity to address the issue of bias but another important point is there was no allegation the board was actually box the allegations of bias had to with the board's attorney the board's attorney was not a decision maker the board's decision maker the motion to disqualify that mr can each brought it was to disqualify the board's counsel not the board so even if that motion would have been granted it be the board that was still making those decisions can each he also takes issue with the district court characterization that this was a random in an authorized decision again i would point the court to its own decision in the middle wittes verses that were part case that was a very similar case where there was an district court's decision in our case to conclude that this was random and authorized was supported by the case law if you review point it's complaint you know the other type of procedural due process claim is those based upon establish procedures the allegations regarding due process in the complaint are only about four paragraphs long and there's no allegations that mr keach rights were violated by established a procedure and the reason why he administrators review act to appeal those decisions so this was clearly random in an authorized decision and the just or course characters ration of that was proper  cooney she takes issue with the alleged ex parte discussions and states that's another reason that deprive them of a fair hearing first i would submit that even if these communications did deprive them of a fair hearing because there was adequate post desperation remedy under the illinois ministre to review act i understand that the conversation only had to do with discussions of points of law sure and what just was question is not between a decision maker not between a board member between the attorney and what it was it was at the first hearing and under state law you have to proceed to the hearing in thirty days and it was case law about that and there was a conversation about there's a new residency case that came out and he forwarded it to the board's attorney forded to the prosecutor the prosecutor then afforded out any she's an attorney and a nothing to do with the substance of this situation the decision was made by the board not the board's attorney if you review the transcript from the hearing the board's attorney did not sustain any objections against mr kenichi this issue was ruled upon at the illinois ministre or we've reviewed hearing in the circuit court in december and judge cohen in that case he concluded that these were ex parte conversations because x party communications need to be made between a decision maker and in or interested party mr o'connor the board's attorney as to equal protection she needs these allegations do not involve an equal treatment as a result of a membership in a protected class they can't he's a white male the it was case makes it clear that a class of one never that's a key word never may be litigated under the equal protection clause to allow such claims would impact the ability of a government to function because every single hiring and firing and transfer decision by a government employer would be subjected to custer's tional scrutiny mr kitschy does not have an equal protection claim counsel cited in her argument up to oic oic is a case that did not involve a new employee of the government it involved a case where it was a citizen of the government and that citizen was being treated with regards to water rights differently than other citizens very different than public employees and that's the key for discourse analysis and why judge  accordingly mr kinney she does not have any viable constitutional claims he can bring against any of the defendants judge buckles decision was proper under the law and would respectful here you have to have physical absence plus intent not to retain your residence you have to have both physical absence isn't enough and the issue in the hearing before the board was there was no evidence of his intent  oh i'm sorry i was my last point just that that those two decisions say a fair decision maker is an absolute requirement of due process in with roe involves the administrative side and it's always got to be there for d process this decision should be reversed i appreciate your time thank you very much