arsay evidence this is a sworn statement from the victim in this case a cone ploy of the claimant was admitting in the evidence and considered by the administrative law judge unfortunately the plain language of the opinion by the ministry of law judge states that the evidence was admitted but it is not competent and therefore he could not consider it now this is i call this hearsay type evidence because there was no hearsay objection on the record so to call this hearsay is a little bit of a stretch because it's kind of a if the tree falls in the woods does it make a sound is a statement made in a ministry of law judge gave notate this that i didn't wait he said it was incompetent he says in his opinion that the employers case was entirely hearsay and there was no competent evidence of misconduct the case against the claimant has not been step centrally throughout this one statement and the statements of the manager on this are you serious role for the referee to find evidence not decided that it wasn't worth much know his opinion states that he it was not competent he couldn't consider he could even consider it to support his his ruling in the case and that's the mistake here he gave it no wait that could be an obvious least it would show in some sort of wayne there's really no consideration of the evidence and if you think he states the entire case is hearsay and he can't consider it it's not competent evidence there need to be some sort of  statement used by a circuit judge an order of protection hearing that the claimant had the notice in the opportunity to cross examine this is reliable evidence the entire point of not allowing hearsay into these type of proceedings is there's no opportunity to cross examine now in the order of protection that they'll hear the claimant receive notice of he had the opportunity to cross examine the statement he chose not the the they're not required to i think it would would clear up this question if they did it without it's always nicer if they do that question is they did it so can we let me be more explicit  sure yes you can attribute that to the board with their straight affirmation without clarifying anyway that they did way well if they're not required to provide any clarification clubs case and then this was affirmed by the board you this type of evidence and i'm talking about the the manager testified and saying that an employee brought this situation to me i talked to the employee i saw her sworn statement she mentioned i was with her victim's advocate and then i asked the accused employee what happened that's the type of evidence that these cases should make the decider testifying i puts entirely unreasonable burden on the employer to have to get eyewitness accounts to all of these hearings now this is special circumstance because there's more in this case belle had the opportunity to cross examine the state and earlier time they received notice i cited in actually rely on the jackson case which is the type of situation that witness to the the violation of the rules in jackson i believe the claimant had been drinking on the job having caught drinking and manager said well certain people told me they caught her with such and such they called her drinking and that was reliable leavitt's here in this case same priest type of proceedings that was about fall also in jackson there was a there's an opportunity to deny the state and to deny that she had been drinking and in that case that was a letter to the union she not take that opportunity similar to here belle had the opportunity to deny the statement against the sworn statement and and he did not take that opportunity he only took that opportunity later on  think it was and i disagree with the acceptance of that i think i have to you know stick with that but when you don't show up for a noticed hearing in the circuit court you have to face the consequences of those actions i think saying that i couldn't afford an attorney or and actually the factual record of that is is not represented accurately by the receipts he showed up for the first notice the hearing and then said i wanted to hire an attorney to give me thirty more days the judge granted that and they didn't show up at the second time so he showed up and then said i want more time and then didn't show up  see your well unfortunately or as a protection to have consequences i mean if you have an order of protection against you and you go to for your card you can't go and say well i let the organ fight over protection because i didn't want to be around this person well now your second amendment rights are or at least suspended while that order actions place and it's kind of the same thing here you can't go back and say well i didn't fight back i didn't want to show up to you know deny those allegations against me a couple of the attorney general's cases cited against me there are largely a circuit court cases where the rules of evidence are you know applied strictly there isn't the the type of evidence relied on well where there are cases where there was no here's where there was a hearsay objection on the record i believe that changes things and there's no deference to pro se pro se i guess claimants in these perceived it's so the attorney general notes that we can expect a pro se claimant to make these complicated projections well that's their prerogative i mean just like not showing up at the the hearing they decide not to do that or hire an attorney to represent them to make these objections they have to live with that con it had been a sworn statement it had been used by a circuit judge to restrict bell's free movement and so there was just no need for her to testify and relive this traumatic experience again there's really no incentive for her to cooperate she got her order of protection and then went the country made the right decision and dismissing balfour violation of the sexual harassment  the sexual harassment policy states that any employee can be discharged for creating a hostile and intimidating work environment and that's what was created by bell in this situation essentially when the country club made the right move here there's if they shouldn't have fired him i'm his their legal counsel they open themselves up to a lot of liability if something did  really the employers place in a very difficult situation here and they get no support from the unemployment insurance agency on this matter you know what's country but made the right choice an  t can briefly speak a little bit more about the jackson case i previously noted that was all the all of the evidence in that case was was hearsay hype statements there was no objection on the record essentially we would need to admissible and then the starkey case states that not only is admissible but it can be relied upon in making a decision by the ministry of law judge that seems to be kind of the disconnect here that we discussed earlier that there's somehow admissibility competency and i disagree that there's any sort of difference why are we admitting evidence if it's not it's you know in my experience the search or level i'm sure your experience is judges that again on objected to hearsay so basically not yours and cases against hearsay are well i'm sorry the use of hearsay evidence is this we did not say that he didn't consider the evidence he he said  he said hearsay while admissible is not competent evidence and it alone cannot form the basis for a decision to disqualify a claimant the border for view said we have reviewed the entire record we find it it was hearsay it was used to prove the truth of the allegations contained there and it was out of court out of tribunals statement made to that fact and the referee to the fact finder simply did not credit it over the my testimony that he any reason you can only block their benefits if they committed misconduct and to the fact finders of fact finder did not credit the misconduct allegation this case again and allegation this kind of does not become more credible where the on the one hand they had a written statement on the other and they found the testimony credible and that was what was the wife because that was about he was he got on the he testified and the referee and ultimately the board found that enough that they're already paying the maximum amount and if and it really doesn't make a difference that's why it sometimes as the board doesn't look at it in terms of the employer having a burden of proof it's kind of a burden of production but sometimes in purse don't even show up at these proceedings either because they're the fact finder did not believe that the misconduct to take place and that was that was a has a factual issue for the board's result and that is that is how they came out of this case nobody's saying they have to keep in mind but these other people for know because in fact it was the case which we cite in our brief people versus who the wife went to court trying to get a protective order saying her has been assaulted her the court didn't believe her did not hear her order protection but her no you cannot use it that way it's a different purpose it's different proceeding different interests your honor quincy cited to jackson and we do argue here there was a lot more in front of the referee in that case than simply hearsay i mean it is true that in this case the plane that was pro se did not object to the hearsay evidence but the referee had it in addition that the claimant admitted to having a drinking problem for very long time she testified that she did not take advantage of her employer's employee assistance program to kill her alcoholism instead after she was fired she went into a twenty eight day rehab program completed she stated that on the day she was terminated terminate that was the board's here as well testify you know really live this account is not something that employers should be forced to do so my mind that's the best for me as well they have to line up all of these eyewitnesses they have to get them all ready to appear by telephone is i don't think bell i didn't buy them by name and we didn't see the need to conduct any sort of further investigation into that i mean essentially  solves the only time frame stated is by him and i believe he says fifteen to twenty minutes which in my mind is you know looking no reasonable standard that's enough time to commit the acts that they are alleges that he committed i agree with counsel that the criminal forum is a whole different happened that we can't look into discretion or whether charges were filed rethink like that much like we can't look at whether they are would have been charged with perjury you know that's she he wasn't charged and she wasn't charged with perjury for somebody her sworn plenary no contact order and they found sufficient evidence based on her statement that they could restrict bell's free movement no contact coming with  whole record so that's that's not the number really do well on the issue of whether this type of evidence is competent to support a finding of the mainstr