standing with the highest courts of california and the district of columbia i have knowledge of her credentials and i'm satisfied that she possesses the necessary qualifications i know all these things because this man know it's been serving as one of my clerks for the past year and from the very beginning she has been an outstanding clerk in every way she's really ready been so helpful in her service to the court and helping me from not making mistakes while at the same time just showing how she is a high caliber person an attorney as well as someone with great character i respectfully is a simple case not civil case but it's a case of an air traffic controller who had over fifteen year career department transportation i think in that regard since september of two thousand and fifteen he had a new manager and from that period on from september two thousand and fifteen until august to have fifty you had numerous incidents are current had to snap a tower which caused him and other air traffic controllers to make numerous complaints against the manager and then eventually at one point it was investigated by of inspector general and it's very important to understand that when they were investigated by officer respect the good general then turned it to a completely different situation because now anything that they say anything could be subject to criminal prosecution so this was a  what do you say about the factual determinations that the administrative judge made because i would be surprised if your legal arguments would be able to withstand those facts will determination think the judge go all on the facts in your view she went wrong and the rd element of her office so basically she in my opinion she identified that this was a serious issue and mr winters in due to his how from the stress that was occurring to where it was what issue did you accumulated based upon the stress of the work and because of that that's why he resigned and he had no generally speaking he didn't have a free choice that we're she went wrong where she alleges there was no improper actions by the agency and my opinion is that if you look at the facts are numerous things that occurred throughout this process that was improper by the agency that she did not consider for example early she she found on the opposite side of the law for example the initial account of believe it was then in september two thousand and fifteen or october fifteen this accountability board was supposed to be a sexual harassment allegation but one air traffic control they were attended to at least seven of the air traffic control brought into investigation about things that were not relevant and yells at the remember that my client was the air traffic controller union representative time so he was serving the capacity of working with management and with the air traffic controllers and her all of his complaints and he made numerous complaints over to a three month process and they went on unfounded secondly i think she went wrong in that she ignored the fact that he was threatened by the union representative who was working at this time in my pain closely with the management and evidence of that is that are you following to the testimony in the record to the effect that two representatives of the union complains that were being many or the lack of investigating those complaints is one thing if their planes occur and they investigated then i would agree with you that it is no error but the issue is that when these investigations are complaints going on for a period of time and there's no the timeline of that just does not add up so for example the hearing this i think the measure larger is biggest or she relies on mr thomas in on a statement where he says that it was a it was a security investigation which is not the the criminal side is just simply agency investigation of the rows out of the alleged alleged work slowdown yes alleged work stoppage but here's what's interesting so st you have the security investigation  in and they're supposed to investigate the complaints that were sent to the ministry of court so the mission of the agency of f a a receives a complaint by all of the majority of the air traffic control and have to tell received this complaint his district manager it tells the individual's missed top time to even order as well as the air traffic control mentor at the facility we are going to investigate that complaints of the air traffic controllers we are not looking at work stoppage that's where there's a specific directive then a month or two months later there is an investigation coming by only two with this is our interview and the only two witnesses are there air traffic control manager who was the one who was being played against time given are states that when the investigation comes out to look into the air traffic controllers complaints they find out about this alleged work stoppage and they refer it to the office of inspector general that's the asked if that's the timeline and they propose everyone that has a there is this person who has information she's willing to tell anyone because this is can't go on so they already know as of april two thousand and sixteen that there's someone who alleges that it could have been a work stoppage they aware that but yet on top despite that the april th e mail from the director or the executive in the this office tells them we're not look at a work stoppage so how does the image of lodgers justify that in june roughly there is now an this is not an issue then when the investigation starts in june is no way that ashley curie which is a part of f a a which is under a mission of her which is under just what i'm trying to understand is very are you saying if if there is information that that management learns that there was some kind of work stoppage among all the air traffic controllers in the napa valley airport ready that if they learn about an april by the time of june they're not allowed to have an investigation of a no i'm saying is that would be it it's a it is a criminal act if there is some conspiracy of all that eighty states to not show up to work i want to be would you judge shannon i'm not saying that they're not allowed to delay the investigation what i am saying is you can use that the disclosure of it in june justified at the point of down during the alleged because they were aware of as early as april so if you're aware of this and i guess i'm i'm i'm i don't understand why it's an improper agency action because that's you get to decide to do an o i g investigation in june of two thousand and sixteen because you have the administrators or the district office is telling them we're not looking into this we're going to look into the a t c investment complaint and then traffic controllers were interviewed so what i'm arguing that this is mr misrepresentation released at least deception because in the air travel in the investigation there were supposed to look at the air traffic controllers complaint they didn't do that instead they only interviewed the two people follow me up please the court after holding a three day hearing and that's to be administrative judge issued a thirty five page initial decision that analyze the evidence and mr winters and various allegations and argument he properly investigation if you look at page twenty eight of the initial decision she did consider the argument that mr winterton raised there that there was a problem with the timing of the o id investigation and the fact that it was  ensure had determined that the work stoppage would not be included as part of the ash investigation however she went through the timeline of a bench she recognized that when mr polk on an ac were interviewed by concluded in april and august it was determined that the ash investigation would resume and the evidence of record shows that it did although mr winterton didn't used to put anything on at his hearing before the i'm a p b administrative judge about what the outcome precautionary action resignation was justified in what sense i'm sorry and i don't understand the outcome of the ash investigation but mr winters and has the burden of showing that there was an improper agency action and so if  believe that something was improper as a result of the ash investigation then it was his job to find that out through discovery and put something on to that effect here in the m s p has no independent knowledge of what happened as a result of a security investigation most in addition with respect to mr winter actions argument about union representatives telling him to cut back on the complaints there is no evidence in the record that management had any involvement with that union decision it is true that the union that he needed to learn to work with mccall com or they would replace him for some labor ravishment relations purposes however no evidence was a dues that that was at the request of management or that not agent had any control of the union physician in that regard finally with regard to citations to the record in the brief there are certain things that were cited in the brief that are simply inaccurate that were presented us back such as the the allegation that there were  multiple searches through the tower cabin air traffic controllers belongings that there is no evidence in the record to that effect and in fact the a j considered the one instance where mccall come came across one belonging and found that he fell accidentally while looking for training peepers and only looked at him to the degree necessary to determine that they were not what she was looking for and how they should be from but also the assertion that a t c zero of ants were a common occurrence is not supported by anything that i'm aware of in the record so it's not merely a nit picky issue of placation the fact that some of these things that are claimed are simply inaccurate are there any other questions that i can answer for you with the m brought up is a statement on appendix page twenty eight given the information available for the f a a at that time i mean it really would have been negligence if the security individuals were provided information about this work stoppage and it wasn't actually investigated i mean this is clearly a serious matter we have a situation where this facility planes are having to land you know basically without air traffic control you know guidance land at their own risk and so we really think that that was you know the most serious allegation that was made there in the board addressed address that addressed the timing addressed how the interviews were conducted and we really think that substantial evidence certainly supports that you know we think that's sort of a theme that's that's throughout  petitioners brief about allegations that were raised that were purportedly not addressed by the board and they actually were and so we think that certainly substantial evidence supports the board was evidence presented about a settlement that was made but with regard to the other ones i mean there was nothing other than the fact that those were made by a number of air traffic controllers there was nothing in the record asked able to report what seems to be going to the heart of the question of whether or not the resignation was justified well i've i think we would respectfully disagree with that i mean we have a situation where we had a three day hearing twelve witnesses were or i testified we have numerous allegations of complaints iau complaints various example the allegations that in this wants an investigation that management was asking improper questions you know those those issues were addressed by the board in exhaustive detail i mean there were allegations that questions in appropriate questions were asked in the board went through and determined as to sort of the proprietary propriety of that investigation that mr winter to and didn't prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was any wrongdoing here and that sort of i mean i think we have to keep in mind the burden of proof here you know there is an initial burden of proof with regards to whether or not a hearing would be granted and that's based on allegations and involuntary retirement case and that the board ship the board has found that that was met and so there was a hearing i mean there was plenty of opportunity in this three day hearing with all of these witnesses and  also the opportunity to conduct discovery as to a determination of you know for example the end outcome of some of these investigations but we think that the borgias certainly address these detail regarding his diabetes and high blood pressure which succumb to essentially have to take the reza plan which was something that was revoked his medical clearance so you have all of these things going on and when we look at what's improper we have to look at the fact that the air traffic controllers letter of april th there was never not one air traffic control or other list carter interview regarding their complaint mr winter to gets noticed in obvious that he's about to go in front of a criminal investigation he's already under his high blood pressure he already anxiety and he puts in his resignation four days before he's scheduled to go do the interview so it is not a situation where he he played this out or he thought this out and it was premeditated if you look at the eight months negotiating or trying to work with me or he was actually removed in that capacity because of these complaints and then now he gets a criminal investigation based on information that was presented to the the f a a in april two thousand then there allegation or their story is that in june it was disclosed and i just want to make this last point if we're talking about the the the disclosure in june i do agree that independent of any could have had and the reason to investigate this matter but if ash is under the f a a under the same department then they were under sync instruction not to do investigative work stoppage and if they were there on that instruction there's no way that this is new information