and every docket it police officers making an accusation and accusation against the defendant whether it be for a traffic violation parking ticket or a serious crime and the not substantial evidence to support that i think absolutely and i think the the board's decision is interesting in that recites the case law and then i think unfairly tries to shoehorn the facts into the into the case law especially with respect to the two credibility issues because we're dealing with a false statement charge but that's my point is that we're dealing with a situation where this is an officer makes a reasonable determination that there's been a security violation and just because the the m s p p judge didn't feel that she took the appropriate action at that moment therefore is indicative of current truthfulness in other words she sees a violation she reacts a certain way and the point that i think your honour's getting to is that  them said with the two with the guessing your honor just so i know exactly critically the first one was corporal nelson we had a stipulation because the the judge excluded a corporal nelson who was actually the officer who was closest to my client at  the security checkpoint and that person that corporal recall my client mentioning something about a person with a camera so that was corroborate critical corroborating testimony resenting them if the if the argument cloth making up making up this the security violation that mr rivera put on did not have a tampa she's completely made it up then why would she also have the have the advanced thought to be able to tell a colleague who's nearby and just dealt with somebody with cameras that was the first piece and the second and that was a stipulation so that's why i believe i think it got forgotten because that was dealt with at the pretrial phase and the judge excluded that and you say even with the stipulation we think it's important for corporal nelson to get on the stand so that we can explore how your client didn't seem should be allowed to testify but the resolution that the that the judge came up with i think she said i'm going to exclude the this witness but i'm going to allow for a stipulation and in other words i think she turned to the issue on appeal but i did i know it's i think one of the issues i raised but i did notice that i felt that the that the court improperly made created a situation where i'm going to exclude your witness i'm going to allow for a stipulation the stipulation was noted and it was in the pretrial decision is that she's lying but it mentions nothing and i understand your daughter's issue with that is with my argument that being that because corporal nelson was never mentioned again that i feel that the board did in fact ignore it and what was the second the second issue was vandergrift this even the bigger issue is this this witness did testify  testified i think very credibly and there was no credibility determination by the board as to that she was not credible or the check she heard she had contradictory testimony or some reason not to acknowledge  rivera got on a different occasion with a camera and there was some discussion back and forth about that camera so even if the the board said for some reason that my incorporated group is not credible it would have been common upon the i think  the but a few months earlier yes so in other words it directly corroborated the my client's and the fact and i will also say there was a third piece not hard charging to get miss rivera a guy who she didn't even know and the evidence was she's never even met before never knew had no reason between them to have a dispute and yet miss we we have this that we have the evidence on the record that my client contacted several times her supervisors which is known as seen pockets like the communications center that moment where i think the judge is inferring that because of that i'm going to risk my entire sixteen year career in law enforcement at this agency where i search banks every day people are rushing coming in coming out i have people who feel they too good to be searched people who feel that they don't need to be searched high ranking low ranking everybody in the middle former police former military former dignitaries whatever the case may be they come to this building and she is used to dealing with them and all of a sudden the opposite because the agencies and i'm glad you brought that up your honor and i know many rebuttal time the the agencies theory from the from the ground up was that the that mister purple joy had essentially leaning back with that with the gesture that the judge referred to in the in the decision with this looking back and open mouth issue but michael my client testified she never disputed that she said she was a look realization now i understand why you were acting this way she says i get it you were trying to conceal the fact that she had a camera but it's only security but it's not it may sound like a weapon or a or a bomb or some other kind of player could is that rational connection to make that if somebody expresses surprise that i'm going to therefore reach into the brain and say you know what i don't think you were telling the truth i think you weren't just realizing that the person was doing this i'm thinking that you she has one and that she didn't have a camera and then you have the contrary statements of your client that she did have a camera that she snatched her purse these things that seemed to be in opposition so the question is one of the charges was cantor right and the other one was what was it false testimony false statement so what do we do with that i mean because you've got a pretty difficult burden of proof here of showing the i grieve that substantial is maybe even hard harder but i think it's not unfair to say that when you have this information before you and you have this decision that just accepts one version over the other and makes these leaps that i think we just discussed that are really not rationally based and not fair that you could make come to that conclusion but is that is that something that we can reasonably sa if i go like that it means i'm going to concocted a set up and conspiracy to find you guilty of a crime or a secret violation that you didn't commit or can this reaction be something that makes sense which is what my client had testified about wh that she felt now i get it i understand what happened and i'm going to deal with it when she gets back and i'm also going to double check so we're dealing with whether it's it whether the stand than the standard being whether the judge was abused her discretion or acted in an arbitrary caprici manner when she basically wholesale accepted the government's viewpoint on this case seemingly ignoring or discounting or not considering or not wayne the evidence that  very significant evidence that corroborated my client's testimony and then in a in a case where there really is no way to tell we have no conclusive evidence in this case no one's changed their story there's there's no smoking gun b i agree but that's my whole point is that is that that's it there may not be a requirement but that doesn't necessarily give the m s p license to say because like i pointed out the very beginning this happens every day and if this is the this is the standard that we're going heart of the administrative judge's role in assessing the credibility of the witnesses and making a credibility determination which is virtually unheard viewable by this court mr brightman makes much of the fact that ministry of judge failed to consider a certain exculpatory evidence however as we demonstrated in our brief just because the administrative judge did not discuss every single piece of evidence in her decision it does not mean she did not consider them and in this case in ministry to the judge actually insufficiency of agency explanation of the fact that something is mentioned is obviously not by itself a reason to to overturn an agency decision on the other hand an agency does actually have to give reasons including reasons for factual findings on substantial evidence of the record as a whole and so there can be instances in which there seem to be unexplained aspects of the evidence that seem important enough that they should have been addressed why is this not one of those this is not one of those because for one as part of the appendix why is it that i i heard her answer was that there was an eight hour hearing and the judge heard this testimony but i didn't hear the answer of the question of judge did not specifically discuss corporal vanderbilt's testimony however she did discuss a good deal of evidence that was on the record and at the hearing in front of her and she concluded that subset there she concluded that the preponderance of the an overwhelming case for miss joyce removal and that mr joyce story was essentially internally inconsistent inconsistent with the video and inherently improbable  she determined that mr joyce had made a false statement to the agency with the intent to deceive them or is it your point that there's obvious problems with the testimony that was presented and that's why the administrative judge didn't have to address it i mean or you can't you're not sure what the ministry of judge starr you know i can't of course i cannot look into exactly what the administrative judge was thinking when she decided when she determined not to address  testimony specifically but again there is no indication that she did not consider such testimony especially given that pearl vandergrift testified right in front of her and that evidence still presented an overwhelming case in favor of her determination that miss joy made a false statement and lacked candor during the agency proceedings and she did go into a good amount of detail of the various reasons why mr joyce story did not make sense and led her to believe that mr i was making a a motive on this joy's part there as far as we can tell on the record there is no so there we don't know why this story acted the way she did or why she made this up but the evidence still overwhelmingly suggests that she he did make this disrespected or anything like that this is the only thing in at least speaking for myself i read the events here and there's a kind of mystery about what happened here and why people were acting the way they did which seems to have some bearing on a charge of fabrication deliberate lying about something your honor what i had there is nothing in the administrative judge's decision that speaks that might suggest a motive then aren't we even deeper in the mystery of what kind of motive would there be for ms joy to make this up well well first of all the administrative judge does state that record as to the motive and so but we agree that we don't know exactly why miss joy did what she did but the evidence still overwhelmingly supports the determination that miss joy  the investigative process and that she made a false statement knowing it was false either with the intent to deceive or at the very least with reckless disregard for the truth i think i'm probably just repeating myself but in the a of any finding out motive really how what is the basis for saying that she made this up the basis for saying that mr a made a false statement statement with intent to deceive or at least with a reckless disregard for the truth and that evidence as a whole that the administrative judge cites supports this first of all there is the fact that mr therapy gone had no reason to lie and second of all there is the fact that mr joyce story was internally inconsistent even throughout the entire process of the interaction with mr gone and through the investigative process and the hearing in front of the administrative judge and finally taking all that evidence into account decided that mr joyce story was simply not believable and based on from pondering evidence that i must be upheld mr joyce germination or over both the agency and the m s p be determined that either the false statement charge or the lack of countercharge standing on their own would have been enough to remove miss joyce from her position and the lack of candor charge which was also  judge has different standards than the false statement and only requires that the agency must prove that the parent gained incorrect or incomplete information and did so knowingly and the administrative judge stated that based on many of the same reasons including the video footage and the credibility of the witnesses that mrs black's candor in providing her statements to the investigator during the investigative process and i'm  still having trouble understanding what the difference on the facts of this case there is between these two challenges either she made this up or she didn't make it up yes your honor and the evidence overwhelming supports a finding that miss joy did make  allowed to bring a camera into the facility therefore even if she had a camera there would have been no reason for her to obfuscate it or put it in the bushes during her break and that's one thing that i hadn't discussed which is that miss joy allege however again even though ms joyce states that she saw a camera on miss rivera pig on its way out she did not say anything either on the way out or when miss rivera gone came back in purportedly without a camera and this version of events simply does not make testimony is that she did not know about the change in the policy i don't know that there's any extrinsic evidence that she did not know but we have no reason to think that she and i don't remember on the video does it show that there were  significant number of people as ms river was going out waiting to behind her to also go out or was she did they basically have all the time in the world to have  a conversation about what happened or might there might there have been some sense of the pressure to get other people up to which i believe that miss joy testified during the ministry of hearing that she was undecided what to do at that but the fact that she didn't and the fact that she didn't say anything to miss rivera gone on the way back and again supports agencies and that misty's determination that miss joy was not telling the truth and she knew she was not telling the  because it again shows that mr joyce story was not consistent with the video footage which the administrative judge reviewed both at the hearing and perhaps when she was issuing her decision misread the administrative judge found that the an incident report that was prepared after the form ninety ninety was prepared i can't find that incident report in the appendix a server resume or i can't find it i believe the only reason why they wouldn't be able to find it is because i don't think was either we overlooked it when we were putting together the joint appendix or we did not cite specifically to that page however if your honor wishes i would of course be willing to file a supplement to the appendix it was on the record below and it was in our police join i'm in your arms for this opportunity the sixteen years in law enforcement and with a military honorable military background and my client goes and has a lawyer from the general counsel's office who's at the checkpoint and her explanation as to why she learned it was not credible that's it you can always make it is that really does that entitle the decision to any deference because that decision saw which is her coming down the hallway hearing what's coming down the hallway and even if she misperceived and we all have been in the situation where we recall an event such differently than than the way we did then other people do i felt this person was angry i didn't think they and then you have two people giving their reasonable impressions about what they felt was going on and why they did what they did it doesn't then connect that sense goes that mystery point that i think was raised earlier is when you say well then my point that earlier as well that there's no smoking gun to be a tiebreaker and then essentially what the what the judge is doing is making i feel an abuse of the discretion to say i'm going to go with this attorney who apparently had some knowledge about the procedures and therefore wouldn't have any motivation to lie but on the other hand i have an officer also doesn't have a motivational life i think that's the problem here is is that was that those discretionary just decisions where they proper and that's i think goes to the heart of our our concerns here because again ever you would have any any pot any situation