this case is a little bit unusual i'd like to focus on that it's a whistleblower case and we're here on earth for a term basis that there was a lack of jurisdiction which is the first rocket you have but that's that's our concern here that that particular this type of a case where my client is an actual whistleblowers not a case where you're saying i i i maybe it was a blower he actually has been found to be a whistleblower for better or worse applies throughout your career so where the normal you would engage in the protected activity something would happen to you shortly thereafter and you would be that threshold test the case of was was actually and found that still working there and you and that's kind of a status you are basically isolated and tagged as somebody who has fought the system maybe surveilled but as long as those same  in this case we're talking about a fifteen year period so there's really no way to prove at least as far as the what the evidence of reprisal the every proposal can't simply be reliant on the fact that he is in fact a with a blower because that would then give him a free pass for the entire rest of his wife right because the whole western type any time his employer didn't do something that he wanted them to do he could claim it was because of his previous whistle blowing thought that standing alone can't possibly be the so you need to make some non trivial is an allegation to show that the whistle blowing was a contributing factor to personnel actions and as i understand it argument as reflected for example on page forty two of your brief is the did you say the mere existence of a retaliatory motive on the part of the acting official millington is sufficient is what what evidence shows retaliatory motive on the part of millington at that again is where we get back to this this other issue which is essentially he was he point with regard to this significant period between the whistleblowing and the personal actions i believe we have said that because he's  established he chose you still need to establish some connection right but but it's official most of the space stays the way you status it is that is the title without the time being then you need to go to the but there's one part of your brief that i want to report you to and i'm little concerned about this and i want you to be very careful in how you answer these questions that i have your name is on his brief but i don't see anyone else but him on his brief  assume that you're responsible for this three issue well if you turn to page twenty eight of your  adverse action was initiated within a reasonable time of that disclosure so the timing prong is missing from your argument and how do you co good morning may please the court the amnesty be correctly decided there is no jurisdiction here because there were not frivolous allegations there was no evidence whatsoever with respect to the knowledge or the time even standards that this court and the board differently why upon deciding whether the board has jurisdiction over a claim of whistleblowing there was not even any evidence of knowledge by mr millington the main actor that british near appears to challenge the only evidence of that was the one nine hundred ninety nine email that petitioner had sent to mr millington initiating the fact that petition initiative to inform them meaning other deal we officials of his whistleblower case or status there's going to patients disposers were continuing source of discussion with millington betteridge in or just  official take the actual in action actually know or was there a she did knowledge did the bad actor before influence the decision in any way there has to be some knowledge by the person not there's no precedent that any possible institutional knowledge might suffice and in fact there's no evidence that any of the five here we officials named here were even employed by the agency in one thousand nine hundred ninety finding regarding mr mellon can knowledge he didn't he thay for purposes of his jurisdictional inquiry that he was going to accept the fact that mr millington had knowledge of the protect the the administrative judge went on to say even assuming let's assume that mr millington had knowledge then that's the beauty of the decision she went further and said that she didn't say mr mellon can didn't have knowledge there's no fact finding to suggest she didn't if there where we would it's not specific but on page seven the administrative judge basically says the only evidence of knowledge was the one nine hundred ninety nine email petitioner's initiative a good knowledge in that there is evidence that something is nothing thing is hiding the opposite to say that as a sport has to use an analysis that this court has endorsed ok let's look and see if there are any other circumstantial factors that might support jurisdiction such as the strength of the agency evidence in terms of its actions and whether there's any motive and there's where she said that they're you know arguing that she found that millington had motive and there's no such finding in the administrative judge's decision that mr millington had any motive or that anybody else had any motive to retaliate the other types of evidence you know what did the agency act towards petitioner in a chronologies and there at the end of the appendix where he kind of gave his own description of what happened over time with no attempt to connect the facts that he supposedly legend's chronologies with any connection to the actions that were taken or not taken nothing in terms of causalities here it was clear that mr melling ten had knowledge if that was a clear pact finding him in undisputed by the government would  different case no because the timing element is so strong here there's no whistle blower case out there that where jurisdiction was found given the fourteen disclosure and now fifteen years later mr mellon can finally extract his revenge against mr morgan now you're not suggesting that in that case the timing alone the fact that millikan was willing to wait and bide his time would deprive the allegations is that the the burden is on petitioner to establish jurisdiction the petitioner the person claiming whistleblower has to come up with some kind of evidence an affidavit or e mails or documents or something and with mr millington was motivated fifteen years later to take some kind of action you can't really presume a bad motive there has to be some evidence maybe there was a statement made to petitioner or somebody else in the agency or nobody passes somebody or something but there's there's nothing here with respect to the first non selection where mr millington  settlement agreement to settle the earlier case here the remedy would be a petition for enforcement not another claim of reprisal with respect to the second non selection millington was not even all charge basically petitioners claiming that he was entitled to be at home loman even if he didn't perform any work he should be paid but the that there's no basis for that in th there were a lot of documents in the appendix starting around page two fifteen where when and federal employee is out of the office the employee has to submit a request for leave on an opium form file the form i think sometimes a form can be filed after the fact depending on the circumstances there is discretion there but basically petitioner and the agency entered into this flex a place agreement so he could work at home while he was recovering the agency relied upon its own he handbooks and o p m rules and regulations that govern the government a federal employee working at home and still being on employees if they're going to be out of the office particularly on a medical leave that they have to provide medical documentation and and things like that in that particular regulation  informed position or several times that she was required to certify on the form the hours worked in order that the he could be paid so there variety of signing requirements that  federal officials are required to follow in order for someone to be paid and what happened here is he was charged with a wall but then he submitted to leave and he was paid so he wasn't really deprived of any but there's nothing they'd require him why do you know there are many decisions from this court involving a wall charges you know it's kind of common sense in a way that if you don't show up for work or that you have before a certain period after it usually within a pay period you've got to provide either a request for leave or whether it's annual sick or family medical leave or some petitioner were given the revised position description so i point that out to show that the administrative judge went through a very careful saying see quencher of analysis of the information that petitioner had provided found that the there was no knowledge by say people other than maryland and even if millington had knowledge the only indication was this one thousand nine hundred ninety e mail that was seven years before the action taken and he they approved him to work at home and then they said oh by the way we don't have enough work for you to do so you're a wall because you're not working eighty hours every or forty hours a week he was at