and that that person has the knowledge at the same time constructed knowledge means someone has to come in and prove that constructive knowledge has been proven imputed means it's there without any proof showing that it has been constructively placed on someone in this particular instance i think the board did not state that mrs peterson did not allege allegations that with the stand she or meet the elements of whistleblower the only argument was is that mr the letter was not and scott and bobby moore these were not individuals that were had ministerial tasks they were decision makers and if you take a look at the decision from a letter from countered from the office of special counsel to the president although it may have two thousand fifteen they basically to stanch it the allegations that mrs peterson had made to mrs moore and mr moore and misess scott and that is this human allegation some are pretty serious and that is that bought forward that the processing of those claims were done in violation of the law ok so i mean i don't think anyone is taking issue with whether or not there are sufficient allegations of whistleblower activity as it relates to the lower level managers but i don't even see any other gay shit in the record that those managers induced mr leonard or affected mr lerner's decision making with respect to the transfer in other words not only was there an allegation that they never told him but there were no allegations that they somehow got him to do what he did it well your honor i can understand that and that is exactly why i'm stating the imputed knowledge attention of everyone that knowledge should be imputed to dr leonard or to the person who takes the action i agree with you if i had some information to show that i would make that i would not be arguing imputed knowledgeable but in this particular deleted and that they knew about that information so what i'm saying is if you had an assistant secretary that knows about this action and based upon the planks and allegations that were made this were made in july of two thousand and eight i'm july eighth two thousand and thirteen and march two thousand and thirteen they were packed and the adverse action took place december twenty ninth two thousand and thirteen that was relayed to mrs and the reason the court said that was because when you think about what gay says and i'm not saying the allegations here are equal to a sexual harassment case all i'm saying is the theory behind imputing knowledge instead of harassment cases was that the elevations  severe that if someone on that's that knows about it there's an obligation to take it forward and it's imputed if you do not because otherwise what would happen is the supervisor could say i never knew about no one told me and so what i'm asking this court to do is to impute the knowledge to the person in this case dark winter that was in the preview of bobby scott went on the scott and bobby moore because they met may of two thousand and fifteen might also add that one of the things that they found worse is that there was an reasonable responses by the office the individuals have been harmed and never been gotten their that's correct when i'm saying you should reverse ascended back and they should then apply well what they should do is what the offices of special counsel say that says that you have to follow the rules that you are supposed to follow when you conduct these activities three things first a mrs peterson's complaints were not taken up the judge i mean to mr leonard of though the secretary and mr moore who's director of corporate services knew about them second the complaints hearings those hearings were in violation of the laws that the opposite of civil rights of suppose conduct and so yes i'm asking you to send it back and tell them to comply with the requirements of the rules that the office of the special counsel said that they had violated and recommended that they should follow whenever they deal with the aggrieved individuals and make it with individuals whole i have nothing else and we respond as if you have questions i have a brief period of about will save the rest of made a finding that that she didn't allege that he actually you know correct but this whole debate about imputed knowledge construct of knowledge there was never a finding that there was an insufficient basis upon which to conduct a constructive knowledge analysis even if you're correct that that's what the law is as opposed to imputed knowledge well the problem is petitioner actually alleged that he did not know i actually knowledge is different from construct correct so now she  is attempting to allege that you shouldn't your knowledge to him even though he didn't actually know which is contradictory and also she didn't present to the judge before the judge the limited information that she presented was that she did not know and that is not isn't there an out of the information that from which the judge could say that there were allegations that would at least support a constructive she didn't meet the knowledge and timing path so she didn't show that the individual who resigned her dr leonard she didn't even allege if she isn't not required to prove it at the stage but she didn't allege that he knew and so  you in court we review the decision of the board correct yes unfortunately much of the information that petitioner has committed to this court with never submitted to the judge so they some of the judge had to go on which was mainly o she did not have knowledge and so the test failed and the jurisdictional test fails at that point because it's her turn to make the non ferrous allocation and what are the circumstances that the board it's standard for previously identified are exactly one of the legal circumstances in which that exists where there's evidence that the lower level managers who know influenced the decision making even if the ultimate decision maker didn't know correct that would be the was not even alleging that she did and there's no other information in the right was the asserted basis for the transfer that was another thing that wasn't fully developed but i believe that the agency in the agency brief stated that dr leonard was aware that there were problems in the department and had reassigned the manager over mr peterson and also miss peters in an attempt to remedy those problems in the department but that's all we really have in the record and i don't there in the time such that a reasonable person could conclude that the disclosure was a contributing factor in the personal action and here as i mentioned we don't have any link between her disclosure and the action either or in no real allegation that this was taken the action was taken because of the disclosures or that mitt dr leonard knew or that anybody with knowledge influenced  was being removed from her position and that a nother individual was coming in to take over for the actions her position as acting chief for the division so well known as scott may made the reference that is in the statement that mrs peterson submitted in july two thousand and thirteen that she was told that about the action took place and later on she indicated that  imputed it's sort of like in says you should know of this or you should if you didn't you should have known in this particular case it's just a malley indicates all of these individuals mrs ba mr moore and mrs scott all knew about the actions that took place that's in the july twenty eighth two thousand and thirteen letter the board knew the board knew about that that information even if you apply their constructed knowledge it would meet that task because the information that the decision makers had this assistant secretary should be imputed or constructively imposed upon when he made the final decision but the decision was made and was communicated to ms peterson by assistant secretary well known to scott for months five months after mrs peterson submitted one thing i want to clarify there's confusion in the record about what jurisdictional statement was actually submitted that there jurisdictional statement that you gave to us doesn't appear to be in the course question again there's two different well it appears that the jurisdictional statement that you submitted to the board is not the same one that you submitted to us and iraq no you're not wrong that's correct because the jurisdiction statement before the court would require our actions taken differently than that would be before the board after the matters were decided by the board its final order ok thank you so there's some revised with thanking