good morning may please the court my name is dana parker i'm from the law firm of jackson lewis p c representing petitioner vance disposal services in this matter i like to reserve a frequent three minutes of my time for verification claim here is based on come on agency doctrine that's verification is really comes out of the common often agency right what we're regardless of its provenance  there's no way anybody would consider that to be a threat and the problem with the words or analysis is that there was no contextual information to suggest he was or what else was there in the factual problem of ambiguity when really you may be quite right that some people would view riots punching overall as a threat but it's also possible others would view it as a guy who's really upset and frustrated that his friend of whatever quality isn't joining forces would vote the way he would like and then it would be rational to conclude that there was no risk that he was go hit anybody other than the all in to see that my time's just about to expire if you could answer dancer evidence in the record suggesting that this was some kind of common occurrence and there was nothing to fear from what is a has to be a common occurrence and this is so what are we to make of that because mr barker i think would have us make a great deal of that court so go behind and ask how the government official reached his decision that's the action we're talking about and the regional director walsh what's his appointment was ratified considered his decisions we don't know how much time he spent but there's no requirement that i can find in the cases about ra that specify any specific of consideration where detail is there any different standard with the same person ratifies the conduct  official ratified actions and i don't see any different kind of standard here it's all about whether or not they acted within the regularity of their office and acted within their authority or well do you concede that this isn't a true emergency relationship is this is this a principle ratifying the previously invalid conduct of an agent or is this is the principle the as a matter of well be more inclined to application all of the presumption of regularity in bad he was knowledge we switched to to a legal question here and that is with the proper standard that is applied to that we should apply for because i am not sure that this court has actually held forth on that question that we have found any cases i mean is there is there anything in or answering that question is there anything from doesn't have an awful lot of experience so the ratification doesn't come up very often as you noted judge smith there aren't that many cases but in this particular case it did come up but that doesn't that doesn't suggest that it's political debates these days but it's not occurring as far as i know in most of the circles in which i'm that's true but these  creates a general atmosphere here in aruba is all that makes a free election impossible we have two men both yelling at each other evidently according to the record and right and all of the way from his friends we're talking about but emotions do not to return to action there has to be a threat there has to be scumbags bed makes a free election possible and you know actions are for the emotions they just are people disagree but the fact that