good causes that they talked about or whether a nexus was required strictly speaking nexis is not required and good call on a good cause analysis but it typically has been part of the analysis in the board's case all here with what the board essentially did was take a situation that occurred far outside of the workplace where there was no evidence connecting the incident to the workplace and decided to terminate it in ministry of judge on that basis all of a understand one of the think they relied for the profile that cited a workplace and again you can imagine if judge wall was convicted of these criminal charges we would not be here today the agency would have had all the evidence that it needed but what happened in this convictions where it's already been shown by by the evidence that the person committed the acts no not any criminal conviction in that and that's where the good cause wind comes into play here because certainly there are some off duty criminal convictions an off duty misconduct where this court has said the board should not trade in these areas and the board cannot decide when i'm thinking of the deal versus d o j case is a good example for me but it is similar in that in that conviction obviously the evidence presented at trial would have been very different we would have gone into the hearing with the criminal conviction already in place it would have much more clearly defined what was going to be proven at the hearing as well in this case we have widely divergent factual findings we have one from judge roberts the nazi who observed the witnesses made this expressed findings based on the demeanor of those witnesses that were very favorable to judge rehabilitation which was based on the testimony of two fellow a g s who worked with judges on that testimony was not even mentioned by the board in its penalty analysis it was quite significant so that's another instance where they they reversed a credibility demeanor based credibility fact pattern that they could terminate on one of the ways they did that and this is a key issue in this case is the admission of ms castro's statement from the night of the in the book there was a key key issue for the board because they used that particular statement if you look at the agency's complaint they virtually built their entire case around it and if that statement is not in the case then much of the agency's argument much of its case collapses i'm down to two minutes in thin fifty six seconds so if your honour's have no more questions competent what's what is sorry i don't understand what is what you're saying you're attacking the state yes something you can't live up to would you identify to it stand choice here yes i mean the management judges who testify in this case and the thrust of the agency's case agency being s s a was that we've got a position description for federal a l j and we've got the a b a model code for the judiciary and so say has never adopted the model code and in fact has no code of conduct other it may be proper but unlike the case where employees were all what's wrong with it is that it doesn't define conduct and he did mabel's the agency to recalibrate charges against judges or pick judges that they want to target and then find something to use for that code so if i'm involved in a bitter divorce with my husband and he makes allegations against me and the agency wants me removed because i like judge long who was characterized as a low producer if characteristics that a judge needs to have a good temperament calmness fairness preparation i mean there are many things that require that a judge is required of having but i think that what you have here along with his inability to perform judicial duties what they did was they jump to conclusions based on allegations assertions remember there is evidence that your state standard should be that she should have  that two weeks later later the s s a commissioner was on capitol hill talking about it in the context of a conversation about a seven hundred fifty thousand case backlog that judges are being blamed for and in the record is the testimony of that commissioner stating basically that he was frustrated with the way the judges had been disciplined in the in the past by the m s p peak and so this case took on judge long became the poster boy for bad traditional conduct undermining the judiciary in fact the public re case of judicial misconduct this perfect the ninth circuit case where the judge had pornography on his computer it was the cover of the l a times it made all the newspaper just because some of those those instances are two neighbors knew about the incident your honor because the claimants the judge wants a companion ran to their house to neighbors know that broward county has a practice of publicizing someone's mugshot when they get arrested the agency unfortunate circumstance guess where the facts unsavory yes was judge long the aggressor know was his conduct intentional know was this an unintentional act when he was defending himself and trying to care for his young child yes all those facts were discount would i would respectfully disagree because if judge long who is six foot two or three or six had hit a woman a five foot three stature with his fist repeatedly the pictures would not have shown what they showed and in counseling or progressive discipline could have been considered in this case but because there was a political backdrop to this case snowballed even after the belief in the charges w because it's obvious from the testimony you are i believe before a l j to nozick that the commissioner had stated plan to discipline judge is a well run judge's if you will and was not going to let this stop no matter what the criminal i'm suggesting that there is enough evidence granted and things that i can't discuss there outside the record that imply that this case was not handled fairly this judge was not handled fairly there was no due process he was railroaded it was snowballing f extent that there is an inconsistency the board's finding a provocation didn't go to what happened in the bedroom the ports finding a provocation went to the escalation that occurred there after the board found that there was no justification or grounds for judge long to then follow me long and miscast are out of the bedroom to him here in the kitchen to hit her in the bathroom then get angry when she because the board admitted it is that is that what you're saying if the chords reading of the transcript in that and the and the opinion is correct then there may be a slight discrepancy in the board's opinion but the fact of the matter is the board acknowledged that she started it with your good work ok yes so now getting back to the question of whether or not the board overturn demeanor based credibility under the he decision there are seven different grounds for credibility findings only one of which is demeanor based in this court has made it clear that the board is free to reweigh the evidence and reach a different  credibility except with respect to mueller based credibility determinations and then exactly what happened in this case the board has plenty of plenary authority to hear these cases and when they're assigned to the ministry of judges that doesn't mean that the board cannot  read the a james decision and really weigh the evidence and reach different conclusions the only exceptions that is when their demeanor based credibility determinations and here the only even the only  demeanor based credibility terminations made by judge g a nazi had to do with this issue of remorse which he felt that judge long showed real remorse but the board found the point in doubt that judge felt remorse but the board on that he was more remorseful about the fact that this had happened to him that he was going to lose his job not about the fact that domestic violence had taken place so is it different we took that remorse but that was only one aspect that was in the context of the penalty though the key point is the judge to not see didn't necessarily believe what he was hearing from judge long ms castro he said as is often the case and during a heated altercation the participants themselves may not know precisely what was said and done although they ma that that the prosecution issue goes to the penalty that's the discussion of kitchen one that's correct that the as the board found even assuming that ms castro first proposed judge long his escalation of the violence outweighed that initial provocation moving to the question of whether or applied the correct standard  first judge long's counsel seems to acknowledge that the standard applied by the board was appropriate and moon is the sorry judge sta no although she says this the standard was incorrect seems to acknowledge that it would be a model code of judicial conduct inappropriate guideline pursued to which the board can judge the conduct of the it doesn't know it's not it's not subjective in that i think in the context of judges it's not difficult to look at actions taken by a judge to determine whether or not that is something that the public would depends on how you define the criminal act of it's a misdemeanor one misdemeanor speeding ticket is with me to be it may be a misdemeanor but my point is that a speeding ticket is something that i think the public would not view as u work depending on what type of moral turpitude actor you're talking about sexual type consensual sexual activity that could be a very different mission jerker it is but that's not what we're talking about here i know that the court grappled with that issue in the doe decision and dealing with the f b i as you know policies and regulations regarding romantic activity off at when off duty but to a court even under the next  standard which is not the same as good cost in your book can provide guidance has found that sexual type misconduct even if not convicted can be grounds for good cause i mean there's a could be a case where there was a man was not prosecuted workers i'm just saying that the that the content of these of an administrative judge require a level of fitness that a postal worker who sits in you know on a conveyor belt all day may not be subject to this judge sits him in what is supposed to be a non confrontational way to resolve the conflicts of others and the judges supervisors found that that he did not have the judicial temperament testified that there are victims of domestic violence who appear before social security administration judges because sometimes a separate disability as a result of domestic violence and that they may find that he wouldn't give them a fair shake in there may be the possibility of bias and refusal and obviously know about it doesn't mean that it could diminish public confidence if the judge was in get i mean i think the public does not need to know about it for the judges supervisors to have doubts about his ability and fitness to adjudicate here the supervisors were clear that they'd lost confidence in his ability when after this incident and the board's decision shows based upon or pondering to be evidence that brother on the argument counsel for the government said that the agency had to remove judge wrong in this case because criminal acts undermined the confidence of the public in the administrative judiciary judge along was cited the bills case in our brief in that case the board held that wouldn't choose to use a generic charge such as conduct unbecoming that you should look to the specifications in the factual allegations of the complaint to determine exactly what it is the employee being charged with in this case even a cursory review of the amended complaint in this matter shows that judgement on was charged by the we can see with committing domestic battery they didn't prove that and under bullets at least the only hope intent should had been proven and that goes exactly to the provocation issue if judge all was indeed provoked and that he simply used force to defend himself and the argument was over actually protecting their child it's hard to see how he could possibly have had the intent required to prove a battery  simply didn't in this case and over the agency certainly pled that in fact in the complaint they said the agency well established the judge only gauging conduct unbecoming by repeatedly and violently hitting grabbing the pushing miss castro causing physical injuries to miss castro on the child there were no physical injuries to miss castro in the child they refuse medical treatment judge all went to the hospital he had a mini stroke in it we submitted a medical report showing that he suffered eleven defensive bruises on his arms and his back from the attack by m very difficult fact situation in this case we had two eyewitnesses to the incident which were judged long as castro we had four other witnesses who had second and third hearsay accounts to offer and judge you not see you believe correctly that the language barrier between ms castro and the people on the night of the incident was very significant here she had to testify through an interpreter at trial judge she nic personally tried to question her in english a few points and determine she couldn't understand english well enough to communicate all the agency witnesses that we had no problem if that was the case why did the police call an interpreter to take a statement in spanish that was possibly translated in english again it the language barrier was huge here and judge she and i assume a detailed demeanor based credibility findings on his observations they should stand the case should be reversed in the charges against judge long were not proven so he should be allowed to go back to work as in the ministr