yes because they were they were they were under investigation of the time of the acts that were eventually two thousand and seven or the flow i think it then your position is that additional charges should have been filed against the responded  regarding the his appears before judge her or the absence of your peers or judge for why do you think that fell under and why do you think that falls in the same cause of action that gave rise to the original time and false statements based on his efforts to remedy that situation to to obtain course from from from pamela so but didn't the proceedings before the judge koko concern think the comparison is probably easiest to the certificate of marriage that that was the last where he claimed that the marriage to the second wife was the first marriage that he ever entered concerning the the that was an i guess pursuit of this alleged victim misconduct that's something we could that's something that was that's that's related so directly to to the alleged big misconduct that is is is the testimony is the is the march two thousand court testimony i understand i understand it's it's a it's a it's another few months out but in you know the restatement of judgments section twenty entered they they can't initiate additional charges until they get that approval and they didn't get that approval until after taylor one was ruled upon and decided well i assume it was a superintendent was like that would be a problem but help let me let me ask you just for clarification it is material in what preceded is it material in the prove up proceeding or is it is the corporation has the be a science or all the way i don't you know like i said before but motive is not element here they don't have to show motive but it certainly is hard to explain why someone with only had one look at his entire life and it would seem to me that he would know had he ever appeared at approval and the question whether or not it was just birds i just never judge anyone else i don't here is the identity of cause action there is no identity of cause of action here because the false statement charges were not part of the same group of operative facts that they can be charged the bigamy hearing centered around whether taylor was married to two are you referring to the false statement charges there was a complaint allegations were made in august of two thousand and four about a month after the bigamy charge allegations were made however you know the superintendent is is free to investigate unrelated charges charges against a defendant regardless of when they rose they have an obligation to charge them for unrelated charges unrelated i am not aware of any such allegation on the superintendent of police some investigations will take longer than others and what you what your position is that they were still investigating these things yes yes and so unless these were in fact part of the same group of operative fact there is no obligation to bring them together in one set of charges and  same thing twice and that is not if they're really unrelated ten different sets of charges you're not forcing defend it politically same thing twice and here they were a different set of charges  jury taylor comes at the at this ron he would suggest that these both originated when he became married to or at the same time by you know it may be true that his predicament of being married to a woman at the same time as happy wound up in divorce court or even what led him to to to cross being the prosecution witness against his other wife criminal for the false statements he made to the courts when he went into court were separate whether or not the superintendent at that pursued those charges at that time the superintendent can bring can bring unrelated charge unrelated charges and that one of them turns out to be vibration irish a cut it does not impact whether the other two are we're talking about the criminal proceeding before judge come here and you're claiming that his denial of recalling before they prove up judge was perjury yes and how do you  so here's the here's mike i'll go straight to the nub of it for me materiality seems to focus on the impact that testimony has on the proceedings in which  was one of the one of the applications that impeachment requires to be complete is that you have to perfect why is impeachment perfected in in each and impeachment is what you were claiming was constituted perjury so why should we say as a matter of law you have not got materiality because if it was really material the rules of evidence require i'm not aware of any cases and certainly mr taylor aside and not that where the charge you were aware of a single case that says materiality can be established by virtue of whether or not it casts any any any relevance on credibility yes we say that every hour injure and acevedo there cited in our brief and the point here is maybe not in every case but when you have a case where where there where whether or not the prosecution will succeed or was what significance does materiality really have if the only question before the reviewing court is whether or not that question your concern credibility of the with music credibility of the witness such out and i would assume that that every question that probability for every witness was relevance that's not material well the cases that we cite suggest that when you have a question that goes to the credibility of a witness who is the who in impacting the credibility of the witness stand under that state this will impact the credibility of the witness and others that statement i'm asking you do you have a case that actually says exactly that on whether or not the credibility this i as i said it's not all questions about credibility but when the prosecution is depending on i merely a single witness and their credibility is what's going to make the difference it is you is that a question of law for worlds or is that a question of fact that we hold deference to the board the fight the board's finding that he made a false statement is a sign that you know deference to the board it will not be what if we question of fact for the agency to decide the question of amounts materiality i hear two questions in your questionnaire the question of what what is what amounts materiality would be a question of law however your earlier question about how do we know it he was asked that he recall whether he whether that as i asked him can you tell me how you tried to let her know about this divorce and that's when he said i never hear in that court a lawyer appeared in court you know what happened in that court the transcripts in the record he was asked that warrants this penalty that was imposed which is in point in this case your honor i believe that tape provides authority for in this case i think  would be appropriate to affirm because there's no reason to believe the police board's decision would be any different with respect to the penalty when you're talking about the same exact conduct with the same just the serious the same exact conduct well there's a difference even if you want to make it technical i mean one is perjury which is a criminal offense the other is a false statement which is not proved they are both false statements under oath in a court of law in the difference between the two the only difference that i see is that in one case if your honour's were to find that the testimony was not material in that criminal case that the materiality is that matt so you think that charging under rule one and two really pointless because violation exist regardless or was there a point for charging them to rule one which requires a traditional crime and rule to which is sort of u fine that's why we have to testify in court and these statements will be used to this is very serious whether or not it technically violates technically amounts to the criminal charges or it's very serious misconduct for the police department for a police officer  they they they treat in that allegation that was part by richard a colleague here by according to the police board in the same in the same ballpark with the other two but two of violations that were we're talking about today that