issue is whether or not a number of disclosures that my client made were protected disclosures and the finding of the administrative law judge was that there was no non privileged showing th categories of disclosure the first category is a disclosure where an individual is part of the individual's toonies is the disclosure of misconduct with the result of judge i don't remember what the result is but i know that when i'm in that particular case but i know that we've all within the third category and that is a situation where an individual does not have the investigation isn't the principle hochman that if it's part of your job to make such reports or disclosures then they can be protected under the whistleblower act but if it's not part of their job they are my client clearly falls within the third category and which is protected and that is even though he has a an obligation to report misconduct by other agents that's not the principal part of his duties his duties  categories my client calls within the third category and that is that yes it is part of every agent's duties to record misconduct on the part of a p further category your honor says where an employee is obligated to report wrongdoing but not as part of his moral duty and he has been the anya's not been assigned the task of investigating wrong which he knew because of his conversations with the bogota but those were not zero duty doesn't make any difference they were specifically assigned well but it was not a normal signing is only came out because there on the circumstances if the agent goes up to congress who are close to the new york times reporter and report perceived wrongdoing i might agree with you but if the  agent simply filed the second investigative memo relating his recollection to the head of the miami office seems to me that quite different well  know i think that mr feel situation is exactly like your honor situation except if you were told to go to the new york times by a supervisor or he was told to record that which clearly fall in the field chief in my home well it is it was an assignment but it was not a normal sign the only way in i don't understand what you mean by normal if you mean does it happen every day well of course not but if you mean by not normal that a drug and that the gator was asked to be the janitor in the buildings or or be a firefighter in case it was a fire and building was a might that would make some sense to me the into the united states and the bogota agents denied that they knew anything about fields when questioned said yes i knew about it and so i mean that they i europe to her to answer a question yes we are absolutely but it was not within the scope of his duties to bring up new material that they didn't know about and it was hardly an offhand comment your honor it was very precise and he raised it thorn in the truth right and so that's not new matter that's the exact same matter it's just the flip side of it her perception versus that right and i think that's sufficient to do it the old allegation was that she was engaged in some sort of improper conduct the new allegation is i wasn't she was i mean that they mean well your honor i don't think it's exactly the same but it's if it comes out of the same facts and circumstances you agree initially with the premise that mr rall that in order to get a hearing on the merits here all that was required was nontrivial an allegation that the two  why don't you know that so then you would think that there was no denial of a request that opportunity of fields to testify live in front of the administrative workers ok so then your view i guess is that on these material the only correct legal conclusion is that they do not get above the line of frivolous allegation into the territory of non frivolous al you can't be suggesting can you that in deciding whether an allegation is regular and a j looking only at documents like her memo and the memo isn't piled them a credibility judgment that she's telling the truth and i'm asking about credibility determination maybe a j in this context may credibility the terminations the other no no ok now go ahead on your point on specificity he is more specific than he is  very specific details about what she was doing and what she was doing was challenging is inconsistent statements she didn't do as a lawyer who was faced with a situation where not only was one already getting  if we can resolve this case just looking at his statement it seems like what you're saying is that he doesn't quote her  lot there were a little kingston in his interview if i recall where he uses the word slanted ministry to get picked up on that word judge three minutes helping us focus on the proper meaning of that word as it would have been used in those cases would you agree that even in the context of an answer to an opiate or interview if he had been as pacific to her exact words as judge friedman hypothetical poses two hundred fifty or the two hundred and fifty five during his o t r interview one of the issues that arose is when are certain people were notified absolutely clearly that she tried to get can stay and not happen in october as he recollected it but it happened in august based on what you said her position was it was earlier but i understand when you hea that doesn't seem like it's a solicitation to lie that seems like repressed that kind of refresh the memory of the witness based on some extraneous north of information well but your honor i would suggest that it really depends on how it was approached and feels reasonably believed it was a solicitation of law and not something more banal that actually would require a hearing those kinds of determinations in my opinion cannot be made by an administrative law judge on things good morning america begin