knowledge of her presence on the work premises in and  four separate occasions over a two month period to her time schedule at the end of the week because she said in an inner testimony that she was being harassed by other corrections officers or asking for that half hour of overtime which i believe the employer and lieutenant ruger in his testimony in the grand jury said the employees were working as a courtesy to the fellow c e o s c e o s in the sense it was but it was a benefit to the employer whom head to head mandated functions completed in a jail for example the count which had to be the prisoner count twice a day and also the lockdown and all these other things and this was the only time the plaintive said she asked for the additional help out over time is when she was requested by a to do the work that others she always were scheduled to do not one was aired if they had any knowledge of or not working that day nor did any one of them testified that she didn't work on those days in fact the sergeant in his deposition sergeant bradley who was the head of the sergeant said they that she did in all probability if you look at her card she did were those days there's no question she violated the employer's policy she was saying the maximum penalty under article seventy five o i believe you were sent in a court in china and talked about the fair nick cave's the nurses worked at a hospital for the employment agency got them and out of the employer head no knowledge but i think in it decision the whole thing about were what is work it's all asa time by the employees a benefit to the employer and if it's to be corrected it's the employer who has the obligation to change what's happening they knew  if they're going to arrest one of their own you get it right they should've known and a minimum to charge him for stealing time you've got to prove they didn't work in this is it not i want to talk about the grand jury here because this is the grand jury presentation took place nine months after this arrest so they had plenty of time to get this investigation straight during their period of time and as i said there were twelve witnesses called not one but how did they get rid of the pink elephant in the room so to speak the fact that there was no evidence that box didn't work the time and i want to i want to also point out before this matter went to it's all legal conclusion and they and the prosecutor never intervene to stop their testimony which was repeatedly asked and grand jurors in the prosecutor said what do you support the fact that the time on the card supports this half hour then comes ruben with this rule ok this jail rule which they enhanced because the jail will only says then an employee below the rink of sergeant must get approval on a card it doesn't say if you don't get approval you're not entitled to the pay in effect their whole legal that was produced which was certified by gleason who drafted that rule and three subsequent revisions of that rule the last of which i think is important because in paragraph five of the last rule it specifically says that under the fair labor standards employees who work overtime beyond happen whether there was probable cause to prosecute this case and when you look at the proof that was provided to the grand jury it not only in this will address a question you asked it not only included the fact that she admitted by the jail she wasn't doing what she claimed she was doing at the time she was supposed to work she testified before the grand jury they're out on september fourth she had to stay over because there wasn't anybody there to believe herself but later in their behavior which is for the record she said that the overtime actually occurred on september third because she got there early as her body piece and there was only in the face  she tried to explain there by saying that the time parrot was was on but when you look at the last thing that she dead which was check the trustee that wins she liked it she she wrote out that she was in order to provide documents and evidence that she thought were easy out of this w she was forced to work over and that's what caused the additional help i will return she added after the type card was checked so i'm sorry however during the course of this litigation she made another excuse saying that it wasn't actually or that was her and i think that was a lead up the documents that were provided by the jail and the chief in wales that doesn't might my client and present anything to the granger of the district attorney and the district attorney did a separate investigation which she not only question witness but also had documents that were budded what she was told by the plaintiff and by what was and based on the proof there was presented to degree jury properly got an indictment and there was agreed to by the trial court because there were several pretrial motions made during the course of the criminal action and during the course of those so there was no show basically fish and i'll use my last time to address the gender discrimination plaintiff claims that because she was a woman she was discriminated and there's no question that interest and i believe her argument was there and it was fear of throughout the sheriff's department was such testimony was that when she arrived there today and that she traditionally arrived early you know was handed keys and and everything was there when she arrived there day which was about think two thirty nine or two forty one  sufficient time to give her an extra half hour if she actually did work there she was asked by this officer to cover the worst conference room because there was a meeting between this particular and major and  had to return to that and i don't mean to get off topic here but to return to the gender discrimination i would just like to point out there the sergeant in the court officers exams are also civil serv civil service exams that require testing which the plaintiff never took and on the other categories all rely for those mostly on our brief but she lists the number of them there she never showed any interest testimony except for one point that he made and it was then you have to remember this the grand jury proceeding was nine months after the after these events took place my client didn't have any discovery or anything she was going and my client came along explanation in the grand jury of the function of the lockdown and if you're asking this witness a completely different question than what you did that day because they know she did the count because there's a count the grand jury when he's not given misleading information there was information that another inmate but then the real issue really came down to our opinion is that they were telling the grand jury contrived crime nat is that she was not entitled to the money because she didn't get approval then is and that's why we wanted to charge because this was the theory from beginning to end this missta she gave a false statement as to the hours she worked she falsified business records she falsified official documents of the department she falsified business records the ultimate issue in this case was given