please the honorable court there is one question at the guts of this appeal that question simply years is the office of special counsels ignoring in confusing them to perform certain minor but important not discretionary statutory dangerous substance but it's clear congress wanted that to be interpreted i really don't matter understanding what you're saying i mean it as i understand your argument you're saying that the others will be chilled he's obviously hasn't been shelved right he keep making these reports whether they get acted on or not he hasn't been children his willingness to make the reports right well yes what were you we reference other people he was referencing that as a test what you're saying is correct and my or a reason was situated employee of women they are ignoring in this way and he was just positing that this is there any other procedural vehicle by which you could try to force action or do its job then under the a p a there's there's the ability to to make a challenge or to seek mandamus in that district court right there is that is a remedy we don't believe it forecloses this remedy but what you're saying is absolutely correct this britain different than a lot of other employees in that because of the retaliatory animus against him he doesn't have a functioning o s c to go chip so even if it might be a better way to go to make that mandamus action in the united states  certainly he or he fits within this statute as well do you imagine had an evidence that o s b act more quickly on complaints by other complainants as far as more quickly we don't have direct oversea respectfully from defining downward to the catch all category and the finding downward personnel action in contravention of congress but isn't it you know with all due respect that lessee isn't there a report from the inspector general that says that they're notoriously bad about doing this job they are notoriously bad about doing this job but they're not but remember the record now their words they're there you know  those see had wanted to fight that battle out with mr carson and had to fight it out of love it did not fight that out of blow so that's the record exists and what i believe mr carson air and myself hopefully intend to prove if we get a chance can capsulated exactly the two principal ones with the question can you give me any example of a case where we have where some a third party agency where don't have to be in a direct relationship that is your employing agency doesn't have to be the one discriminating engine is possible that another agency that is not your right but that's a very different because that was actually an employing agency and there were there were categories of exceptions that were laid out these don't this doesn't fall into any of those categories it doesn't follow directly in the any of the categories that were referenced in ways that is undoubtedly true in the narrow  but five logic and reason it fits within the any other significant change in working environment or workplace conditions of the whistleblower protection act as amended in one nine hundred ninety four so our argument will shatter the federal budget will be earthshaking or simply asking for those minor non discretionary spending reprocessing type these and so that's why we believe it's a reasonable pretending but acting as if the nine hundred ninety four minutes mean nothing and that catch all category isn't they all that i agree the cats are category is important and there's all kinds of things you can envision but i guess what i'm still trying to understand i s it be one thing if you could argue that he was chilled and making complaints because he was so afraid that they would not be listened to but but you're not making that argument because as you say he appears to be  accepted right now so he gets that he has then gone now does the fact that he is so persistent and show because he loves this statute and cares about it is that in some way  sufficiency of his evidence alleging whatever violations he was alleging so he had a full opportunity to have each one of those individual complaints that he made reviewed by the m s p he just chose not to avail himself of that of let me understand because i thought that they only right for an individual right of action appeal was where an actual decision had been rendered by the o s c but that a refusal to even investigate did not soon as that investigation is closed they can come and go to the embassy be and have it individual right of action which congress provided in eighty nine so that is remedy his remedy is not to file another complaint with the s c naming the special coun decision on that the absence of any kind of adverse personal action well that's true that i mean you argue to the board that he wasn't their employees so he shouldn't be allowed can argue that they're with us because we can't rely on a theory that the board to live with it but they know it i think it's still the case that there's two things that have to be there it has to be a personal action and it has to be an individual who has authority to take that personally action that's remains true now the employee doesn't have to be employed by that agency they could be an applicant as was the case and rouge area and we'd the case counsel was talking about in both cases those were individuals who were attempting to obtain employment with anita said i'm not dissing agreeing with you that you had a valid argument to make to the board and i don't necessarily think if i were on the board i would have made the decision to say categorically i'm not basing i'm not going to decide that question but they absolutely didn't employee of the agency you're playing but that's different again from saying that i mean this is straight in the statute there has to be a personal story the person taking the action has to be a person of the reached twenty three or to be actually precedent supporting this argument mr carson's making in there isn't there's no nothing a sense that you can file a complaint against the special counsel the special counsel has an unfavorable disposition of your complain and finally i think another way of looking at this is the fact that there's no remedy what is the remedy that mr carson asked for well in his complaint to always see he said remedy he wanted was for overseas used quote stop breaking the law congress provided that individual can come to be a prove their case since the special counsel is not taking at taking it any further they can take it further by coming to the m s p be they can have it they can if they meet the threshold requirements they can have a not an evenhanded investigation to bring out the facts on all sides and so we we don't have that we received i think perhaps too often that the investigation is closed without explanation i don't know if that's true or false but if it is true then it would be congress that would do something about that obviously not them is p b s and if he doesn't oversee the special counsel so be congress and ultimately the special counsel the which is not a process that congress created nothing about there's nothing in the whistleblower protection act to give someone the right to file a complaint against a special counsel if they don't like the fact that the special counsel closed a complaint so that it's doesn't fulfill the legislative intent when you say everybody is helpless to remedy that i didn't say that everybody is helpless to remedy that and i think that the brenda lee ultimately is congress and the president as with any other agency or any other remember he's just asking for the performance of those certain non discretionary duties in the twelve thirteen that are and he's entitled to just the mere investigation to the extent necessary to determine if a primitive person practice has been taken so i thought that was one of the things in hearing that pelleas argument that i thought i could quickly distinguish is that mr carson early start i realised this course is not the attorney general of the united states is not times we get mandamus because one court or another our border another isn't acting on something swiftly enough to someone's liking sometimes we grant them because we say yeah it's taking too long sometimes we don't we don't happen to be the proper forum for your mandamus in this case but there is answer on whether a man but it's why should they know they wouldn't be the body to decide the mandamus they would even be a party in a steward holding the mandamus so you expect this government counsel to know whether you should be able to file a mandamus in an unrelated suit where they wouldn't be a party would have no say wouldn't participate but nonetheless you expect him to stand up here and none of that is in your brief so you expect him to stand up here and know the answer to a complex legal question that a different branch of government would have to decide well and that's your carson and he has this relationship or they have animist for him so that is very very different he may have a right to mandamus but is not limited to mandamus because of working conditions have been changed given how congress defined the working conditions