i think next case before the court is case number one five three one four three sharp versus the e p a it's a case arising from a decision by the merits system's protection for mr lets you watch five minutes for a  a charge of violation and had it it had consents to extension of supervision and and there was no dismissal at that point based on this underlying interpretation of texas law whether it's yours or his criminal counsel's underlying interpretation of texas law correct i think the last piece for itself roger of the agency could have done the research it's the criminal code of texas and it's clearly stated in there so the at the fact that he consented to it doesn't change the law the law as it's ten years at the agency had done in my opinion is the diligence it would have known that and you're saying the agency can't proceed on the facts as lorand law and at the time that that all of these events occurred that they had reasonable cause to believe that he could go to prison based if based on the probation violation i don't think there is reason because when the law is clear he wasn't on probation and been for six years and under under the statute as it is today it was one five year extension and that did well and it was two thousand and twelve so under either scenario there was a reasonable cause and i guess  to focus on is i don't think going to prison is what triggers an indefinite suspension the intention of suspension is when there's been the allegation of a serious crime which was one thousand nine hundred six and until we find out what exactly happened we're err on the side of offering the court is when he signed the traditional confession in one thousand nine hundred seven we know exactly what he did if the agency wanted to take removal action based on that it had every reason to say found next you know that's  prison doesn't protect any public interest doesn't protect the public at all that's not what a definite suspension is for is to protect you when there's been the allegation a serious crime and so we know what happened in this case we know exactly what happened back in april  by agency personnel and in this case the incident happened in one thousand nine hundred six you had seventeen years of no problem he was a good employee he had a good record so to just say that you know seventeen years after the fact through the hearing right he consented to an extension of his community supervision which would have been a a better result for him that going to prison the first time around or getting booted to commit any other violation i mean i think in the criminal justice system and i'm not a criminal absolutely no proof that he ever violated his probation and the fact he consented to it is is a pretty common thing i think in a criminal justice system where you know people don't go to court they take something or because you don't want to run the risk they didn't prevent it there was never any proof to determine what was going on with the police coming to their office and looking for mr sharp they learned that mr sharp was on probation that the state the da a district attorney a criminal prosecutor had filed a motion probation that he was arraigned in front of a magistrate judge he was held without bond but the arraignment indicated that there was offense and offense of probation violation and it indicated that he was read his rights he had the right to counsel but the mean what about the fact that in two thousand and one and one thousand nine hundred seventy eight admitted to a crime and there was a potential for for imprisonment because any violation of community understanding is that they did not find out about that until two thousand and he did not have between ninety seven and two thousand any kind of misconduct so there was no basis for the agency to take any action at that time however in one thousand in two thousand  twelve he'd been arrested for other probation violations and he consented to enlarge or two extensions of his probation so in two thousand and thirteen is when that the landscape changed to the agency he might have been and acceptable employee and in two thousand when he first found out about it but by two thousand and thirteen it's not the same story and the probation revocation proceedings were never serious allegations that he was failing to pass a lie detector test and there was the witness statement indicating that he had admitted to the witness to engaging and misconduct and that he wasn't passing the lie detector test on questions about whether he was engaging in inappropriate contact with minors so in two thousand and thirteen it's it's it's not the same facts before the agency is what they had and two thousand when they first learned about the judicial confession if you agree that in texas a consent to a continuation of community service supervision doesn't require a agreement that the probation violations occurred there isn't there is nothing in the record to indicate that mr sharp w conceding that the reasons why he was originally arrested in two thousand and seven and two thousand and twelve was that he was conceding he indication that conduct he did consent to enlarging the periods of his probation but the is that that is not relevant to this court's inquiry as to whether the agency had reasonable cause in two thousand and thirteen and august of two thousand and thirteen to believe that he was he had committed a crime because the agency looked at the until twenty four days after the suspension was imposed so because in this court's case and rhodes the court looks at the facts that were available to the agency at the time that it took the action and doesn't try and  base our valuate the agency's actions on hindsight which is what the petitioner is asking the court to do here by arguing that he wasn't as a matter of law on probation in two thousand and thirteen and he responds to your friend's argument that that actually the agency should have done should have been alerted to the fact that it seems weird of that that you know after this nine hundred ninety seven conviction the if the supervision was still ongoing and given such a lengthy amount of time the agency should have researched texas law to see whether or not there wasn't some some problem with his continued supervision mr sharp was represented by a criminal attorney when he appeared and surrendered to the texas court in august of two thousand and thirteen if it was incumbent upon the agency to do research and to ins weeks later in imposing indefinite suspension one would expect that his own attorney would have been up to speed a criminal defense attorney would have been aware that his client didn't need to surrender on probation revocation charge because as a matter of law his client was not actually supposed to still be on probation and i think it's the government believes it's reasonable for the agency to have relied upon what was in the official court dockets they fishel court docket in texas with respect which showed that he was mr sharp engaged in inappropriate conduct with a minor while of probation that would be at page a forty four of the record your honor in saying that the e mail it is it's an e mail from john to susan chandler who was the inspector general agent who conducted the investigation and he cut and pasted and earlier letter that he had sent to judge barnes so he cut and paste show that the shark has been violating his probation it's denied by denied violating emitting to violations of treatment but not to probation but it does also say that he had not passed a lie detector test in the last four tries in six months regarding contact with minors to him or to them and then in the second to last paragraph the witness reports that he with respect to the nexxus issue your honor the agency believed that they had lost the agency's concluded that they had lost trust and confidence in mr sharp because of the two thousand because the true thousand and thirteen probation violation was not just the first time that he had had problems at the agency the agency cited to the prior agreement with mr sharp the settlement in two resulted in the extensions and so the agency lost confidence that mr sharp could going forward and perform his duties at the agency without further interruption if the court has no further questions than we respect they had done just some fundamental research they would have found out that the probation had ended in two thousand and seven and even if the one time extension of five years was legal which wasn't on that would have ended in may of tw twelve and there was no chance to believe he would be imprisoned for any of this the other thing we just talked about is that like you know a forty four we reject that in its entirety and there was any validity to that he would have been charged again they're only allegations and he denied all of them and if that motion hadn't been successful he would have had the opportunity to prove that a of a crime which triggered this and i think the only confusion is do we know what happened or not and once we do know and then this case was making ninety seven it was a matter of public record that he admitted to  think the motion was about the twenty fifth of october in the judgment on the thirty first of october so the judge threw it out and said yeah koreans who version is passed they they kept him on suspension until november twenty first then we appealed to the i think that that part of the suspension if november first you know there were twenty first it is probably now history and we relate we're left with the indefinite suspension from october twelfth to trigger thirtieth