you've been my clerk for over a year now and we're going to miss you you know you brought great skill and talent too much chambers is a lock ripped in the past year and in addition to your illegal act in a really grown to and if you can do that then that's that's big challenge i've come to to respect your legal skills and i know that you're e a great practitioner and student of  entire case revolves around this read the proposal alleged in its last count that corporal jackson  did not uphold the responsibility of acting favorably to the u p p both on and off duty and that she participated in an incident involving moral turpitude as a consequence of the allegation that she went to this building read and try to get her quote to tell the lieutenant and sergeant that you were in the class and were excused by her since she was already find just from one of those reasons that that disposes of the cage correct no it doesn't because that there is no evidence to indicate that the penalty would remain the same i also believe your honor that the issue with miss drives all of the other issues because this voting really was interviewed three times gave three statements and never said that corporal jackson tried to get her to say that she was excused and in fact when she testified live under oath before her the administrators just again all she said was there was no evidence from this voting read that she was asked to live by purple jacks and the administrative judge ignored the fact that the testimony out of this i was authorized to leave early because i already have the class so the issue for the court is can the administrative law judge take evidence from this witness which essentially is the absence of any proof that kirpal jackson tried to get her to lie and turn it into the opposite that she tried to get her to lie by relying on statements of other officials  officers at the government printing office i would suggest that that notion is taking the flexibility of this administrative proceeding which allows hearsay way too far but what about the other sads under oath and she had three prior statements in each of those awkward prior statements she was given the opportunity to say that miss jackson tried to get a lot it just didn't happen and then you but you expect by the fact that one of the coerce me into lying or covering up what really happened she didn't ask her to lie she she she did the administrative law judge admits that it was no evidence that that corporal jackson tried to get hurt a lot she went and lots now if if she if the if the allegation were that she was engaging in a threatening activity in the workplace and that ms folding read felt threatened then that's a different matter altogether however the standard for finding this pond is much much higher than what occurred here she had the opportunity three times when interviewed and a final time when agency counsel had prepared the case in testifying upon in front of the ministry of law judge and to say corporal jackson told me to tell them that i released her from the class i excused from the class to she already had the certification she never testified that that's the allegation and this is buttressed by the fact that expressly didn't say versus an inference of battle the most natural meaning of what she said just say yes and understood by the person to which exact sentence just say yes it was directed well corporal jackson had already spoken to rivera and salo and they had accused her not going to the class at all and so purple jackson goes to recess and they come to see just say yes she's asking her to tell the truth well how do we believe one could drive different inference because if that were the expression just say yes in context it could very easily mean in fact it feels like it more naturally means keep your testimony limited so that you only give a favorable answer and then stop it but the obligation your honor is that corporal jackson told her to say that she had excused and there's no evidence that that's the allegation and so we're talking about whether the proof is sufficient to support that jackson did not ask her to say that she was excused from class early and corporal jackson agreed that she did not say that with that change or decision and the answer was no sir so you would believe james there were both mrs bolton reid and corporal jackson answer yes or that's the height in my view of an arbitrary and capricious decision maker when the person who is alleged to have been the one who whose testimony was trying to be fabricated who's who's who's being interfered with is almost obstruction of justice doesn't recycle the actual false statement was that she said that she went to the class at eleven o seven and that was the printout of the breathalyzer lieutenant rivera who was the one that she said this to knew that the breathalyzer times were an accurate so the last time being eleven twenty so clearly she was in the classroom least fifteen or twenty minutes and for them to allege that she represented that she was excused from the classroom faces that i think is a distortion an effort to try to get good morning your honour's and me to please the court and ms jackson's heels in this case invite the court to do precisely what it has repeatedly said it will not do which is really weigh the evidence on the record and the credibility determination that the ministry of judge who has all of the witnesses and all of the evidence in front of permeated this case we've cited the henry case for that point but you can you can cite check to henry case this court has cited that case over and over and over again for the proposition that under the circumstances when there is an administrative judge was had an opportunity to observe all of the witnesses and in this case there were a lot of what there were four separate witnesses in three different conversations who watched mrs jackson and listened to miss jackson tell the story first to her supervisors sergeant rivera and then her conversation with ms balding reed and then her conversation with director burns and one of the witnesses officer james who at the time was in the position of being mr jackson's own advocate watched her go through three iterations of this conversation all of these witnesses came away with the impression that ms jackson was attempting bolling read testimony on this would you still remain the same decision and he said absolutely yes i would believe officer james who is in the position of jackson's union rep and had absolutely no reason to fabricate his testimony to consistently testified that this was about was about ms jackson claiming that she had been spews from pot even if even if ms balding read him claimed given that certainly i would trust officer james who was there and not the target of the instructions to just say yes was able to be a third party observer and reported consistently with everyone else that she was saying  where and i'm thinking specifically the weight casings for a lark is that they that she cited in her reply brief where the court said well they're due to be the administrative judge or the decision belittled relying on one very lack of candor issue on that charge does that dispose of the interpretation i would say your honor and they have to affirm all four charges or no no your honor director vernon this is a change a one hundred of the records i want to say one hundred that are appendix that we filed director vernon in his decision indicated that the second two charges the lack of candor and inappropriate conduct charges  would constitute a sufficient basis to remove mr jackson standing alone so we didn't rely on one of the attorneys you lot on to us as a reminder one of those two charges a lack of candor charges had to specifications show up at this training session in the first he said he said it was a serious charge but but that the other two standing alone were sufficient and that's important in the context of the briefing here because of the various harmful error allegations that ms jackson h made in her brief relate to the failure to follow destruction charge even though that the serious charges did make the allegations affectively moot because director berman stated that he would remove her based on the other two charges there were here ms bolling reed made clear that the to the issue that ms jackson came to discuss with her was telling her that her supervisors were coming to discuss with what time she had been in the training and that's consistent with the story i mean certainly there's room for witnesses to discuss the team type of issues in different ways and that these are the issue about being about time worrying about whether she was excused from these are all aspects of the story that ms jackson  to add is that officer james his testimony is absolutely not hearsay because of sure he put in a statement but he also came in and testified in court and i and this is at several that mr jackson instructed his bowling read to say if i was excuse me and tell them the day after i was excused say yes the other thing i would add is that i'm sorry to two other quick things to add which is that director vernon also testified to that fact she testified to the century that the jackson told a story to him that was consistent with the story that he told everyone else he testified that reasonably solo from the evidence that the point of the story as your honor is noted in the during opposing counsel remarked with that ms jackson was instructing this building read to say yes  what happened with voting read presupposes that corporal jackson on the fourteenth told her and solomon a different statement about what happened then she told solomon initially she told solomon initially i didn't know that i had the training and then we're not now when she went up to them and gave them the documentation that showed the breathalyzer test that was because on the fourteenth she thought were very solemn and were accusing  r not going at all and on being honest or her they took that information as some kind of evidence that she arrived at eleven o seven obviously that's the reason for the lack of candor to my position is that that that never happened in that conversation i never told of that i went and was excused why would i because you see the three different times that were there she would have to be profoundly stupid to tell them that she went and left it was excused because there were two other officers who were there they were interviewed by just by change they told james she was there that the problem here is that the there was a lack of communication on the fourteenth when rivera solomon and vernon listen to her and saw these printouts and they thought she was saying that she was there and eleven o seven and was there through eleven twenty and then somehow was excused and then encountered solomon went back it's not possible and it's profoundly stupid for her to do that and therefore that's why it's important that counsel for the government never asked miss bolling really did she tell you to say that you excused it didn't happen you