she didn't know who the one hundred charges and if you told them she could not going to your point is that when she goes to court and tells the state's attorney that she wants to drop the charges that her active participation in a criminal prosecution absence under the act it is very clear that that is an element of the cause of action just as an element of an interference cause of action under the f n l a mrs staines failure to meet that element occurred on two different levels first was her failure to establish that she used her absence on made for permissible purpose under the act and second it was her failure to establish that she met the certification requirement provided for it is difficult to look at a black and white page at this stage and infer and identify all the different elements that go into credibility finding for someone that has observed the witness it is for this reason that both this court and the only supreme court someone with a bad memory would not suddenly have a crystal clear memory with respect to only that issue which ultimately will determine her rights under a statute it i agree with often the sort of inference really hasn't done that and it seems right seems reasonable to say the name change is observed to witness that her testimony isn't trying to say ultimately i just didn't believe her and that's what we have here absent any other testimony or any other evidence confirming her actions on may the eighth it's simply impossible to know whether she was using her time for for a protective purpose it is an equally plausible  it but i think the answer to your question just a moment would turn on the very specific facts that went into the interaction between the state's attorney and the potential witness  because there's no evidence that that's what actually happened i didn't ask you that i asked you if what she says happened in fact happened do you have a position as to whether or not that constitutes preparation knew just trips and because you an individual must use vessel e for an approved improper purpose under the act and they must actually use that means as they have informed their employer that they will and that seems intuitive and i don't see that as first was to do is she said she was going to which is a ten to ten court and participate in a criminal prosecution and second to provide some sort of corroborating documentation to her employer so i understand it took to come full circle here i understand the concern here about the ultimate outcome but the shermans finding its position here is this misuse state simply didn't meet the requirements of the act and that  the consequences of her failure to act in a proved improbable fashion the employee is entitle to leave one for seeking legal assistance or remedies those are the key words seeking assistance legal assistance for monies birol testimony she had no is beyond dispute is that she deliberately essen and herself from the court room when the case was a call leaving the state no choice but to dismiss plaintiff tonight at ten or participate in court proceedings and far is that if you are going to seek the protection of the it it requires did you fall within certain terms and those terms have been  and there's also other interpretive a so there are examples for example if she had gone to court because she needed to get a quarter of protection she'd be covered if she went to court for  arguments to the contrary put the cart before the horse logically because plaintiffs in the first show that she was exercising their right to take a leave the baby could not have interfered with or denied or kind of question the blue was the decision maker i did it for far less chance so who do you get anything in that record that would show this was the only issue she ever had with employment with the banks and that the only reason she was failure to provide