should move the admission of scott guard green who was a member of the bar in good standing with the highest court of new york i have knowledge of his credentials and i'm satisfied that he possesses the necessary board and will participate fully in the further events so as you present your arguments i will try and represent her viewpoint in our interaction with you time she's also had the the image baby at this time during the briefing and she had she had a different she had a different trial lawyer than than than me handling her or her district court that there's is there still this it rushnell issue out there so i may not be remembering accurately and maybe the government can yes clarify this but i think in the government's response and its  point something along the lines of the actual subject of the discrimination charge a complaint that's in the alabama clerk is not the removal it is rather the issuance of the notice of proposed removal and that therefore even if ms washington has a discrimination complaint it's not actually a discrimination complaint about th determination includes includes a reference to the fact that she had been terminated about in there and in the in that twenty eight thousand report that was that was the worked in the veil she did a voluntary she year volunteered to do this job in iraq in baghdad for a year at some point they tell you need to move to smyrna georgia but six and a half hour drive from from mobile you know where we talk about we're going to talk about what's in the record what's not you know look at what's not record they're saying she never moved to georgia are they saying she never did this  dovetail with what was being brought about by by the government at the time or the minutes because up until that they were coming into the hearing they thought they were arguing you know there were nitpicking the regulations and so if you look at the the the pretrial information everything they were all but based off of they were all based off of  is actually more a false tension and they kind of change and it's during the of the of the of the things that they file name that they said she falsified documents they claim happened when she when she up she had to in order to obtain these reimbursements she has to put she has to put these documents onto her computer in ordered the the requests for payment have to come from a dot gov email she can't do it from her partial address so she has to get these documents on her computer so even on a computer and then object to you saying that she was not permitted to present this argument absolutely that she was absolutely not allowed to do that usually we were representing her in this note she had union rep mr mitchell was it was a document they said she forged but they even admitted the purported author if they say it was forged the purported offer was missed will miss most was miss washington they can't it came from a document that it came from a document and more so on this particular issue where what is the government's response to the argument that she wasn't permitted to present her evidence rebuttal she was allowed to present  argument that when you upload a file to a computer the file gets the date it's uploaded she attempted to introduce evidence that she could manipulate the clock on a computer to create a fal state that's the evidence that the judge excluded and in the initial opinion the judge notes well if in fact the issue was you uploaded the moving receipt on a later date there's e mail from the moving company for that later date so if that's the issue you got in on a later date where's the underlying evidence to support that the whole issue here of meditate a is is really something of a red herring as  found on her computer yes or aka we're told that there were other considerations yes he looked he said and he found the dates and the fact that those dates don't line up with underlying e mails that there's no receipt of payment there's no proof of payment and that miss washington admitted that she never actually moved to the atlanta area never set up a permanent residence there she was in the tennessee mountains or living with her brother somewhere she could not remember the address that all shows the substantial evidence that proves that justifies the decision upholding the removal here you can assess this about the method and issue i certainly see in the blue brief and argument that the ministry of judge erred in allowing the testimony by the non expert investigator about the meaning of the me if there is an argument in the blue brief that the a j erred in denying her ability to make her own testimony about the meaning of made as i read the argument miss washington makes she is complaining that mr that the investigators testimony was allowed not that her testimony was excluded there was a problem in her view is voluntary should not have been allowed to testify and that's why our response was well at the time you didn't object at the time you had actually listed miss washington actually listed him as a witness she intended to call and that fundamentally it's not expert testimony so one could read i suppose generously the argument it would require a very generous reading to say the argument was that was made in the briefing is that ms washington should have been allowed to introduce this testimony that she could that she hadn't previously identified that she could change the clock inside a computer to create a false can you address the transfer question and the relationship between the new district court action the one in alabama and this appeal from the board decision yes  honor we think very clearly the court has jurisdiction the alabama case is an appeal from the e e o c determination the e e o c determination during the pendency of that matter before the sea ms washington added a claim about her proposed removal not her terminations or proposed remove when you can see that at the supplemental appendix at sixty worn in its decision is not a four claims that miss washington makes and three of them don't have to do with any part of the removal one and claim for as identified as proposed removal that's consistent with what she amended her ido see petition to assert that's what the o c considered so the alabama thing back to your question your honor the alabama matter is comes up from the e e o c it has no impact on what was done before the m s p b the m s p b matter was not a mixed case and this case before this court is is from that matter and is not a mixed case because it wasn't a mixed case below it cannot be this case cannot be create turned into a mixed case by a subsequent amendment of an unrelated district court complain we think therefore very clearly the court has jurisdiction and this matter should remain here we're also frankly concerned that if in essence all one needs to do to create a mixed case is say the word discrimination and then wave it or put in no evidence of it then in essence every case will become a mixed case because every savvy plaintiff will say the word mixed case in or say the word discrimination in order to be able to then choose their forum where they proceed we don't think that's what the law requires we don't think that's what the court should find here we think very clearly the court has jurisdiction we think very clearly that the host of evidence presented to the m s b be setting aside the issue the lack of any receipts the admission of non movement the the various statements or introduced into the record where ms washington needed that she had never  left alabama there was a host of evidence we set forth in our brief it's theirs and we put the entire transcript there there's asked are beyond the very limited standard of substantial evidence to support the decision below so for those reasons your honour's we think very clearly the court has jurisdiction the decision below is correct and we ask that it be  falsification one of conduct unbecoming there were four specifications under the false occasion charge obviously only or as the law is only one of those needs to be supported by substantial evidence that's been raised by counsel isn't she didn't have a fair opportunity to respond to these various charges and that they were not adequately supported by the evidence yes your honor but did the record doesn't support that position i'll go through each of the specifications the st one was the false the false rental payment where there were thirty five thousand dollars in rental payments  ms washington supported that by pointing to an alleged bill as we've talked about extensively there's the bill the meditator showing it's not the right date but set aside that it's not the right date there is no underlying payment she couldn't put that in evidence she also admitted that the lease itself doesn't justify doesn't give any basis for imposing this key upon her this is the least germination fee yes  the nd specification under the false occasion charge had to do with the moving furniture moving expensive furniture of about ten thousand dollars again there's a of materials moved but ms washington in a bankruptcy proceeding said she had only two thousand dollars worth of household items there's the fact that she has what the initial decision and we've calls a nomadic existence she doesn't have anywhere she doesn't set up a residence in atlanta so where did this twenty thousand dollars pounds of materials moved to if she's staying in hotel rooms and with a brother in law or in the tennessee mountains that is substantial evidence evidence that would support the reasonable the interpretive question about the meaning of the metadata absolutely or i think as soon as the question is raised of you say you moved show me the check stub or the bill of lading or some evidence you paid and it's not there nor was a witness from the moving company called who could have come and said oh yes that didn't happen we think even without the metadata issue there is substantial evidence here on the rd issue the rd specification had to do with  living expenses where ms washington claimed living expenses and couldn't prove that she had actually been in the atlanta area she said that she had she was able to show a receipt for two days  hotel stays but these were many many days of living expenses shit no proof of having been in the atlanta area said she'd stayed in hotels for two years but couldn't identify any documentation to support that in fact again at the hearing admitted she never set up a permanent residence in the atlanta area but what if anything did the administrative judge or the full board say about mr hunter's point that during what couple of years she never missed a day in atlanta when she was supposed to be in atlanta the which is would you say you're going to do if she is in mobile well unfortunately to appears  wasn't that hard she was on a four day a week work schedule two of those days were telework so now we're down to two days we're talking here about a seven month period it's not new years it's in and during three months of that apparently there was some sickness issue so she wasn't in any way it's of note that the investigator mr fein tear came to her office to interview with her and one of these shoes supposed to be there she wasn't there now certainly should have been leaving be entitle to take  it how much of this of what you are now saying is actually in the a j c opinion or the court's opinion as opposed to here you're describing what the underlying evidence certainly that the four day a week work schedule i believe is in the opinion the investigator coming the st time is in the testimony it's in it's in the supplemental appendix but it's not in the opinion the issue frankly was washington didn't argue this all must be true because nobody charged me with not showing up for work so that we don't think that would have worked as a defense for the reasons that the evidence shows but that's not an issue she put in front of the administrative judge if she wanted to an argument she needed to raise it there at least to the folklore and say oh you got it all wrong i was at work every day she didn't make that point so that isn't fairly honestly that shouldn't be considered now it wasn't raised  below judge newman you asked me to go through the remaining specifications the th one under the st charge has to do with making the false representation of having moved she admitted that she had moved and then the nd charge was fo conduct unbecoming and this was for making false documents using government records and using government government equipment this is a you know a credibility challenge mr fine tear said these don't appear to be correct they don't appear to have the right dates there's no underlying documents ms washington said they're correct there what happened the administrative judge made a credibility determination that mr fein tear was correct he ruled in that way having viewed the evidence in the to the to the government for reimbursement my reading of what misuse of the work computer if she had run payroll for corn man or off of that that when they misused but she's she's the only documents they have or documents that if she's going to submit a receipt it has to be on her work computer and so if it  they're arguing that doing what they tell him to do is a misuse of the of the of the of the of the work computer in a just good stick with regards to with regards to charge one what he's talking much as will judge even if you ignore the met they said that she had a nomadic existence well again her nomadic existence was all in the atlanta area yes sometimes she did stay in a hotel because her brother in law's house she had to stay in a runoff because she had just she was just going through a divorce look in that rolls royce build jet engines she did those kinds of things that she they had to do it on top of the fact that in the th month span she spent three of it recovering from an emergent from urgency surgery so she never really had time to set up a smyrna is in the northwest corner as someone may have driven in the line of traffic more than anybody in this room and if you don't leave it three thirty in the morning she would get she would be in smart about eight o'clock stone near tional mountain and so sometimes she would stay there was a base mile mile high off from her station in there was a courtyard there she doesn't receipt she shows for the courtyard on bikes and so sometimes she would stay on for two days instead of driving all the way back to her brother's in between her to work days she stayed at the hotel in that way and yet she too part of the time the st seven months there complained she wasn't there never she there we're talking about just a matter of a few days they're saying aha you didn't because that aha you didn't move and something else to remember is the record shows they started this investigation december  that there's e mails on the record where her husband was negotiating with this company but afterwards the old man died and it was a one man outfit i got twenty seconds one thing else i'm going to mention is they mention about the bankruptcy about a two thousand two hundred dollars and moving twenty thousand dollars pounds of stuff