income it was basically because she was living in an extremely horrific abusive relationship she was afraid to report her for the fun she was threatened about it the district court even recognize that's not true but it is ok you can you can be on welfare and you can receive funds that you're not supposed to receive for a variety of reasons the welfare department could make a mistake in their was given to that it was given to the district attorney all along so you have the cops tell me what the heart of your theory is is that that the welfare fraud investigator and her supervisor should have never forwarded these this arrest warrant that declaration on his facebook page from the welfare department states that the welfare department believe this president willfully obtain found by fraud and  what we're saying is that the welfare department couldn't make that declaration the district attorney could ask for that kind of stuff and the district attorney could certainly go on whatever its investigation is but the welfare department it's  investigator tell the prosecutor mark to read the administrative findings i don't know that one of your allegations you know whether she put it there her supervisor put it there are some unknown person put it there when this file arrived at the desk of the prosecutor he had had all of the information we've discussed that have the welfare fraud investigator in the supervisor of the department saying these payments which were was there and that was a october twenty seventh the final recount if you taishan back actually down from twelve thousand to twenty five hundred that was not there the district attorney didn't have that he filed a complaint using a figure that was wrong that was at nine thousand dollars which according to the formula about how you disregard that would have been cagey culpability that he didn't have that document so when he did his arrest the vision for the arrest it had a nine thousand dollars figure in it which would have indicated culpability and that is one of the things that we say is that that particular vacuuming w because the document indicates that just regards which can only be given if it's not on willful are i mean that's the point you can't have this particular mathematical formula if the person is guilty you only have this doing was signing a declaration under penalty under penalty of perjury that according to the welfare department this woman had committed welfare fraud because the fair hearing decision of the welfare department held differently  participate in any way shape or form with the submission of any information to the district attorney to participate in a fair hearing to the calculation of the overpayments or to the just months after the able to a decision he really there is no evidence of that he is merely the head of the department no more no less and under a plethora of cases there's no liability just because he is the supervisor of this sort of hanging around the  here and i really don't have much else i think i understand where this court is coming from there really is a clear distinction that apparently the appellant has never understood the distinction between administrative finality and