me please the court the evidence of record and the applicable law and regulations in this case proves that ms caesar did not alter an official government record but merely a senior counsel of record corrected it's very important that they can exclude information that would check national security or trade secrets because the these could actually have an effect so the internet version does not an effect on the penalty or not i mean we were here because your client is charges altering an official document dealing with alteration and candor and conduct unbecoming and or terminations because of that what i'm looking for is a legal issue that we can decide not the factual issue once again though the argument that that it's not an official record but let's go close about the cover up that can be a cover up in fact if that person was doing what she thought was the correct procedure there's nothing to cover up here she was using her judgment as an experienced attorney and she thought that she could correct the internet version but by that time the  already indicated that there was a problem so the information was ready public so everybody knew about it she wasn't covering up anything she in fact she asked a paralegal to make the change so this was not in the nature of a cover up that wasn't an dealings in the case and turn the file over to him all indications are she fully complied i understand the government isn't disputing and nor did the board find that she didn't turn the file over as i understand it they found the file didn't contain the e mail which she had expressly requested those i don't get to sit there appears to be an instance where they disregarded a particular finding of the i g i think this finding goes to the file and  performance issue as opposed to misconduct where does it say that well at the very last paragraph for example noncompliance with protocol that resulted from inadvertent error of professional negligence somehow vindicating miss things are seeds or it is the issues in this case appear to be compliance by caesar with the appropriate protocols in the office relating to the correction of inadvertent errors appearing in appearing in settlement documents professional negligence if it affected the operation reputation the office is a matter to be properly determined and settled administratively by the department and isn't that exactly what happened here they decided ministr was found out that there was an error was corrected nobody ever contacted the seizures to find out her version of what happened they just went ahead and continued to take the disciplinary action and which one of these cases that both the administr well the factual finding that should have been considered it after it was the agency that requested the i g report and then they ignored it on the other hand they didn't charge him the caesar with vioxx was not do you have a case that says this was specifically done for the purpose of investigating whether we succeed or engaging misconduct in the alteration of an a government document so it was right on point this investigation was exactly dealing with the issues in this case citing official in the case and the action the removal action would have been taken on the basis of any one of the three charges the saudi official said any one of the first three charges but not charge for order the id report came out in october of if this was truly a typo meaning literally the word titanium had been spelled wrong and so she went in and corrected it or as a paralegal to correct it would that violate the agency's requirements of the secretary signing each document yes your honor because what happened here is that when she altered the order and the documents on the web the on the foyer website were not the same as the what miss either did was in altering it and not telling her supervisor or the client of the director of export enforcement or the assistant secretary none of them knew that what was on the website was different then is this a sign or you sort of justify the outcome because the cover up was worse than the crime you know maybe maybe if she'd only change the number from one to two on the bottom and been forthright about it we would probably not be here at all even if you would still say technically it was altering an official document nobody would have put up any kind of resistance to the government or tried to fire her as a result of that because that would have been a small issue but here the coverup was worse than the crime and that's what caused them to reach the conclusion is that part of what i understand to be argued part of it your are the deciding official testified that all four charges were serious she would have removed miss either based on any one of the four charges and any one of the administrative judge he did not sustain the penalty of removal for one charge of one the school board did they modify the administrative judge's decision because all four charges of serious but getting back to your point the cover up in the manner in which she did it were very very serious where a senior level attorney she was not fully forthcoming with her supervisor the client or the system secretary had she said in the beginning there was an error made i don't know it happened but made a recommendation right away on how to fix it and went to her supervisor and said yes what happened what do we do this all could have been avoided i do also want to point out th happened and furthermore you called me a bunch of names and bosses don't like to be called names right well in this case she had been disciplined before for similar types of conduct conduct unbecoming she'd had a fourteen day suspension in two thousand and seven and one day suspension in two thousand and six her other supervisors had attempted to correct her lack of civility and rude and hostile behavior towards  again back to the idea report though the id issued a three page letter to council in october and one month later the proposing officials and proposed charges two three and four so there's no way that the i report can be read as addressing charges two three and four charges two three and four did involve the cover up in the manner in which she conducted it was for example mr just testified that he was confused he couldn't figure out why the documents on the web site were not the same as the ones that were signed so he asked her to please explain what happened who why when instead she ne ne wanted all the and all the  emails she did not she only gave him the internal emails it was for five days later when finally he realized he wasn't getting any answers from her that he had to go to company counsel to ask for the e mails in the may eight e mail surfaced so all this time you know she she knew what had happened she did not tell the supervisor she did not tell the director madigan she did not tell the assistant secretary jeff was confused and trying to figure out how to fix it and in the process while she argues that the id said she it appeared she followed a cease and desist order that was irrelevant to the charge of the proposing and deciding officials  not rely on that of all these to cease and desist order was mr jeffs telling her ok you're not handling this company matter anymore and it appeared to the idea that time that she complied with that although it turns out she did go to see mr madigan the director a day after mr jefferson told her that so in the disciplinary action under chapter seventy five title five which is totally separate from an i g for something she did not follow mr jeffs order she did not give him the e mails even when he told her the one she gave him were not responsive she did not cease and desist because she went to director madigan the day after he told her to stop having any involvement in the case and with the the conduct becoming even the administrative judge noted in the decision that throughout the m s p hearing she continued to refer to mr jeffs in the draka torrie manner it showed an utter lack of civility contempt and disdain for him and for his position and for any kind of authority even the within the office so that yes the the cover up and charges two three and four were very very serious  as a deciding official testified that the lack of candor was the most serious of all the serious charges because the attorney in the government just inexperienced one of the clients the agency has to be able to trust and rely jeffs never told him that she had altered the order and had it put on the website in talking with mr madigan she went to see him the director of export enforcement and said oh there was a typo or in the process of having it corrected but she had already caused the change order to be put on the website two days prior to that time she had already sent the the altered order to counsel for the company and to the the matches in the process not only of having already done something to the website but trying to get the documents from the records there's no evidence whatsoever that she ever attempted to have the original hard copy document but by regulation the agency is required to put it on before but what the full board said was any experience attorney knows or should know that you know you go to even though there was no formal written protocol which is what the administrative website how do let's here's what i recommend in terms of what we can fix it you said actually what she told the i g was will be a waste of time to go through this process to kind of amend the order but what the assistant secretary said in his declaration  signed a lot of documents and i've completely lost trust and confidence in this caesar because if somebody asked me a year from now is this a document you signed and this is somebody had substituted page without him knowing it it com undermines his authority in the regulatory scheme getting to that the penalty imposed upon the company had actually no nothing to do with the proposing and deciding officials decision they didn't mention it they didn't rely on that it's really irrelevant and i'm still confused about one thing and maybe i misunderstood what you said so i want to make sure i get it right we talked about what the deciding official held with regard while we sit here and i don't see you told me the full board took this to modify it to make it clear that number one a load would be enough and i don't know how i could miss that in the board opinion so i want you to show me where that is the full board's decision number one standing alone would not have justified the penalty of removal you expressed please note that twice in oral argument now so i want to know where the board to please me express leaves change the a g s conclusion the number one home loans even  doesn't justify the penalty of removal the full board on pages twelve and thirteen of it's decision under the penalty section yes went through how where all the charges and specifications are sustained been reviewed the penalty for only to determine decision so the board puts it in when it's actually modified so i don't know that we're in the government's position now which i am to apply in every future case is that when the language except as modified by this final order appears in every single board opinion henceforth it is a modification of the determination of the a j i have to conclude that that sentence alone always amounts to a modification in all future cases of whatever decision the a l j reached even if no expressed language anywhere in the opinion indicates that i am to invent one modification and inserted assuming that the a that's the particular one that the ale j got wrong that's the position of the government before me today is that i am to take that language in every future case and give it means your are we are not suggesting that the court invent anything but in this with the chairman about those and what the problems are putting that language and she told me she would do something about we have the notion well look what is it you want the presiding judge is saying is the position you're taking is that when they use this magic language didn't means that any substantive difference between a hail great decision and what you saw in the paper here subsoil lanny the full board is disagreement without saying so court that the board is concluding that claim one alone or celt one would have justified independently her removal your honor their language that we quoted that she engaged in all these types of misconduct in addition to altering official documents is in the penalty section of the board's decision and the way we redid is that with modifying the a j c decision not only substantively but under the penalty analysis they are the reason the reason why they do that is  each one of the charge of standing alone was sufficient to remove and under the court's standard a review in terms of deference to the agency in terms of penalty the deciding of testimony is is quite powerful here she never testified well i would not have removed on turns one she didn't testify would not have removed one charge for c testified that each one of the charges came alone was sufficient to remove misconduct and here we have already the ministry the judge finding that charge one when stand along and we believe that she's not guilty of misconduct which you made a change in an official internet version of a document she used her best judgment judgment was incorrect it was certainly not misconduct it was a most a performance issue and furthermore she told a supervisor that she had contact with company counsel and agreed that a supervisor could contact them this is hardly the kind that or someone who was trying to cover up something she didn't realize at the time she spoke to him the change they're ready been made but she told the paralegal to make the change because she didn't have access to the system process of being made to realize it was being made but that's hardly not evidence of a cover up it just shows that she was incorrect the bottom line doesn't promote efficiency of the service to remove inexperience attorney for making