ross benefit of doubt on some subjects soon he was not truth on other subjects how does this court have the authority to go behind those credibility determinations given the rules and the static the can grasp onto one particular event because as the supreme court set stated an end or send the appellate credibility review has to be done in light of the entire record and you just have to look over the span of litigation for the past fifteen years and i think that  the lower court didn't do a good job at doing that and with regards to the two thousand and three to two thousand and eight activity so for the district court i'm focused heavily on non disclosure bad men but also you it just explained why they weren't of consequence but even in that instance like the fact that you may recall that he has been so heavily involved in changing the ego see charges since the beginning that saying that he forgot that he did not know that that in because that would be more difficult to prove that showing that this has been a consistent pattern of retaliation over time period company's desire to protect its trade secret information tell me what else we can look at the size inconsistency is for us to say that's what the motivation was i think if you can look at the timeline said they found out about the charge in two thousand and three but did nothing to do the questions to probe how and why how we did that why and i think that that proves that the primary motivation was not the concern for disclosure of trade secrets if he was really present really concerned about trade secrets he would have had dr sancha constant review the information when he first got the abstract and then and then proceeded to to so in the course of the litigation or just to have a good faith abstract was to consult with the scientists make an assessment as to whether there was reasonable concern in terms of potential overlap with research to which dr would have been exposed to that moment hans and had to seek to scupper which is all that m gather your response to your adversary's point that if they knew about the deal we abstract in two thousand and three but didn't intel after two thousand and seven has asked us to draw an inference that he had information for four years and he only responded to it after the settlement discussion broke down i gather your position is in two thousand and three they just didn't have enough information to go to be awake because they only had the abstract and they decided let's pursue discovery to try to see whether or not the when never really produced anything but there were some documents produced to temper that around a little bit more of a of a review and also a little bit more of a concern and then there w what would be i don't believe there is any basis for this appeal so i don't know exactly given the waiver of the right to have a retrial i don't believe there is any basis for this court to order anything in this case yes great yes yes i go your honor but it i think that this this appeal can be dismissed on multiple grounds one of which is that there is nothing  stand i think your honor is right but in the case where wrong a positive promise to produce a quadratic witness and fails to do so that right is to a different level than just a he said she said type of situation we're now looking at there's there's a witness that was promised and th