s over the course of several years while working as a forester she was threatened personally as well as in the course of her duty she was offered bribes to stop an investigation into the corrupt activities so good can i ask you one question when i was reading the transcript there recitation you have in your brief and in the transcript is you know it's fairly compelling in terms of this individual suffering from some threats and of course the house and all been burned down there no wrestling made a good report to the antenna cause department on at least two occasions the threats that she was receiving and she was told simply not to worry as people simply go away they just want to put pressure on you see indicated that she was afraid to tell either the prosecutors were prosecuting the case and their supervisors or the judges handling the cases of her threats because she feared that because of the white square right spread bribery that was going on they were also involved in that that help us do that issue i'm not aware of any cases where i don't think this is a situation where she did not tell people she didn't report to the police she did report to the anti narcotics department with regard to the police no arrests were made with regard to the anti department who were actually working with her on these cases she was told simply not to worry these people essentially go away i'm here if you are a problem you can stop see indicated that she did not believe in what they were doing see believed in her job and what she was doing and she did not want to be part of that so i don't think it's the same thing as a police officer who arrested gang member and then out of retaliation he's receiving threats she actually what about the fact that the government of the ruling party in kind appears to have changed the ruling party has changed but come december twenty seventh the elections again so i'm not sure that we can draw any conclusions at this point with respect to current ruling party wins the election on the summer twenty seventh well i don't think that necessarily impacts negatively on this case because her complaint was not necessarily against the president or national figures in nairobi her complaint against local politicians who were members of parliament so she's not complaining that it's necessarily kind of itself but the fact that the government officials who are in the area growing marijuana locally are the ones who are getting the problem record shows that in fact she was threatened not to testify against individuals she testified against individuals two days later the house was burned down after the burning of the house she did reports of police no arrests were made from that of the court appeal the government argues that it isn't it did not really have any fear once she had relocated that in fact because no marijuana has been grown in the new location and because you don't have been suffering threats from local businesspeople that the government's argument is actually accurate on that contrary is supported by substantial evidence the petitioner testified that with regard to the burning of her house she notified the police the police arrived they told her that they would investigate they didn't test again they came back to or they told her that persecution well founded fear for future persecution is supported by substantial evidence i think it's also relevant to note that in this case after the petitioner's house was burned she left kenya remain there because the economic conditions were difficult she then passed through several other countries including tanzania and zambia before voluntarily returning to kenya i think that that sequence of events is powerful eviden wasn't subject to the same sorts of problems that she'd experienced in her prior post and i think that the fact that the government authorities transferred her immediately at her request again undercuts any suggestion that they were indifferent to her concerns and of course the fact that she transferred to a new area where there was no marijuana growing supports that she could happen in fact did relocate to a separate area of the country where she was not that she was still work she was still subject to  mere telephone threat in an of itself doesn't compel a finding of persecution of course the plaintiff in this case has never been physically harmed herself and certainly to the extent that she has several lingering cases that might require her testimony in different part of the country i don't think undercuts the notion that she could relocate with safety to another part of the country of course this court need not reach the relocation issue if it were to conclude that the petitioner had failed to establish persecution in the first place which of course is our threshold argument and it is troubling you know basically she's got these narco traffic people who you know are after her and her testimony is accepted she makes complaints nothing happens there's the threat and then two days later her house was burned down so while she might not have physically been harm having your house burned down is a pretty house was burned down by government agents or by people who the government was unable or unwilling to control that's exactly right that's exactly right and i think it's i think there's no doubt that it's not the state here so it has to be someone w who is not controlled by who the government is basically abdicating their duty toward that's exactly right and i think the record in this case there is out fairly clearly that in fact the kenyan state or at least was the relevant time aggressively  marijuana growers in fact the petitioners argument is that our problems are really began when the government really started cracking down on these marijuana growers she testified that they were putting people in jail they were aggressively prosecuting them and that was the reason why these criminals were making the threats that they did so i think the notion that the government is turning a blind eye to this sort of thing is willing to let us law enforcement agents be subjected to these threats again i don't think is borne out from the record in fact i think the record is quite parliament was sponsoring the growth of this marijuana so i don't believe the government is correct in asserting that the petitioner receives problems or threats only from local business individuals with respect to the the house and the burning of the house although the petitioner did examination by the judge that she was somewhat speculating she also did testify that in her compound there are only fifteen houses she lived there for over two years during that time no house had ever burned or caught on fire she did not have any electricity in the house so there was no chance or believe she had the house could have burned by electrical short or some sort of electoral malfunction although petitioner did leave the country voluntarily she did return to return that's when she was relocated at her request after being relocated she received additional telephone threats this is again after the house had been burned she left the country because her house was burned she came back because you cannot find any suitable place to live thank both council for your arguments this morning the case of vs chrysler is submitted