next case is elizabeth summers versus the popular veterans affairs thousand eight hundred fourteen twenty seven decision she emerges car factor one car factor two so our argument on tar factor one is a triple to cart factor two and so far she focuses on the strength of were untrue exaggerated taken out of context regarding terminations rendering terminations inappropriate you don't cite any evidence for that proposition why should we find the well it's the issue here is highly deferential standard well yes but the information provided in the record shows that the judge ignored evidence as well as actually got the facts wrong also misapplied the law and so these are reviewable decisions in the in the blue brief it twenty six no two you argue that m s p be improperly denied this summer's attempts to introduce post removal compared her evidence case manager at the v a there were also evidence that the employees who supported miss summers cool challenge allegations against her were tallied it ha the tranny the a j found not only that it was bar protected disclosures because of her yelling pulling him in dating demeaning confrontational behavior but the evidence if looking outside just the attitudes and looking at the context was agitated the record shows that the criticisms of miss summers or the fact that she had ninety minute morning meetings that she counted for employees time that you review the emails and want to be copied on them if us i do believe that her decision is unsupported by the evidence you know your answer you're saying if you want plot all the bad things that people said she did then hey there's nothing wrong here summers was simply doing her job of managing an apartment that was the delayed by over a year to open do you dispute that seven employees complained about miss summers on the same day i do not dispute that happened i just knew that those employees were specifically requested and encouraged and convinced to bring those that i understood the the administrative judge to have been saying that they were encouraged to report the derogatory things that they felt that is just a fair characterization written signed statements from approximately ten employed by your client is there evidence on the record about how many written complaints were made about the alleged compared no you are the bosses complaints were t actually was half or less than half of our direct reports who were who raised the complaints so it made them change over time ten to fifteen and ten of them you have ten written statement not all ten of the statements were from disclosures was trying to avoid that delay so her urgency as the record says it was her acting with an urgency wanted to get the center opened the surgical center excuse me and that was what the record shows maybe rubbed people the wrong way in the great great had fourteen you argued that the m s p be improperly based its decision that the complaints against summers were more serious than those against that compared upon the opinion of a named retaliator and then the name of that person is it your position that it is improper for them as may be to rely on evidence from an unnamed retaliator and if so what your support i thought for that evidence supporting the reasonable and simple the right isn't that the way one would articulate that if you brought clear and convincing evidence from the beginning of the opinion when they make it clear that she understands that this is the standard agency should consider evidence that would challenge the agency's position the concern appellant has in this case as the judge did not consider all of the evidence only evidence that she felt supported the each and see and then discounted some picking of particular facts from the record i understand your i would like to herd revert to the reserves in time for rebuttal we will save you time thank you very much with the kid finding that you would have been removed anyway i think that's correct your honor is that the standard get stated in lots of technical ways but when one looks at the jurisprudence and usually comes down to that fundamental practical question this happened anyway production she questions ask questions about some of the allegations that miss summers raises about people conspiring against her about people wanting she considers witnesses that presented on her behalf and she goes through their that you were indicating that you thought that the evidence just didn't support and so i did not support an inference that there was any retaliate tory motive here but the procedural now one other question it was alluded to and it holds argument i don't think he he spent a lot of time on it but i was curious about your response or the argument that he makes that despite having articulated the correct clear and convincing evidence standard on page twenty four that the judge then effectively imposed the burden on the addition there in places where for petition point anything i'm looking at anything wrong that there's something else i need to consider is there anything else here to pull back from the well being the question is is there evidence that makes it an ocular and convincing that's exactly exactly right and i think that  evidence of conspiracy fabrication in the absence of a claim to that effect i would suppose i think that's what i strive to be hedged it seems kind of a natural progression of proof maybe this is what you're saying and actual progression growth as the government lay set to its case and then after appellant feels that there's some other reason that needs to be brought to the attention of the fact finders to why this happened then it's kind of on the appendix page fifteen thirty which relates to the boss employee relationship between the subordinate and i don't want to sidestep the clear difference between the name comparative and the summers the complaints about the twice industry standard of turnover in the comparative department this was not the case with miss summers and you can find this testimony at appendix page thirty nine in the judge's decision as insulting us the complaints regarding the comparative span about from the same time as a termination going back were ten months they may have continued after that evidence was excluded ok whereas the time period