district court to consider all of the circumstantial evidence all of the bad faith that wouldn't just all of the evidence that both sides could proffer and make a finding whether these two remaining defendants used the funds at issue for an improper personal purpose and the district court did all that every involve the expenditure of union funds in accordance with the constitution and the way in which these officials used and described and viewed this allowance we see is not consistent and in our  our opinion was maybe not a model of clarity but there were at least three votes for the proposition that the constitution was ambiguous and there were at least two votes for the proposition that the interpretive question was subject to deferential review right and the union officials when if they were interpretation is a reasonable one if it's reasonable and made in good faith and that's true and that part of the decision is not subject to clearly erroneous writ that portion of the decision whether or not it was reasonably well i mean i understand why you make that argument and will we'll talk about it on the merits in a second but in terms of what is or isn't open on remand we did say that the district court did not error in applying the officials from construing basing their construction on a good faith reasonable because friction of the constitution and i think we need to separate here the fact that in this particular case the allowance itself time it required these union members as does section two one as to the end for many regulation it required these officials to keep records because if they do not keep records there's no way to have truly the underlying argument of the with respect to the constitution was that the constitution allowed only itemised to see expenses under i think it's article six of the constitution and the decision in two thousand and mouth whether i make sure we're on the same page you're saying that when we remove the the remained in struction to consider bad faith has not only evident significance on the question of these what these two defendants were doing but it has interpretive significance on construing the union constitution yes because i think that's  by the union convention and all of so all of your if we give you everything everything you're asking for on bad faith being open and open question on remand and bad faith being present in the case all you have is that the union presidents in one nine hundred seventy six and one nine hundred eighty six were misbehaving and what they say about what these documents mean can't be the basis for deference you still tainted by what some prior presidents had said twenty years earlier but the ratification itself the resolution itself with its requirement that receipts and records  be maintained even though they need not be submitted in order for future review by the fiscal committee by the department of labor and by members who want to to review the accuracy of the handling of union sides under two i want that requirement in the right resolution had it been the practice and the way in which the officials viewed used testified about this this allowance then i would agree with you but the fact that they but that was all before a session of the appeal no that aspect of this case was was not part of the prior appeal the part of the prior appeal essentially had to do with whether or not noble had presented no evidence you did whether or not the constitution itself limited the allotment the payment reimbursement of expenses to those specific we provided in the constitution article six you relief on that argument was based on the constitution itself which says that expenses to officers may be reimbursed when idolise and this particular allowance gives five hundred dollars a month that resolution was thousand and eight decision focused on the lack of recedes and the this and also the fact that the district court had not considered evidence  but it seems like this argument that you're making about the significance the interpretive significance of the resolution is one that either was made or should have been made when all of these was in this particular appeal and that when you eat when we sad that i mean an interpretation of the governing documents that would permit compensation for these expenses even without receipts was a reasonable one we had before us all of these resolutions that you're not promised possible yes you did i've i've run out of time in its two thousand a decision this court charged the district court with weighing plaintiff's circumstantial evidence of misuse of the allowance money namely the lack of of receipts against the defendant's evidence to the contrary and the district court did exactly what this court charged with doing it weigh the evidence as judge sullivan explained in this carefully crafted decision jets all been found based primarily on the testimony of defending young that the lack of receipts for many of the expenses reflected the administrative burden of submitting receipts not the allowances not that the allowances were used for personal expenses and the supreme court has said that a district court fact finding on testimony  consistent or contradicted by external evidence and this is the supreme court's wording can virtually never be clear air i'll give you the point that his finding his fact findings on whether these two defendants misused funds was not clearly erroneous but it is there this separate interpretive issue that i was discussing with your colleague because we said in the prior opinion deference deference on last bad faith right and then we remain with a specific instruction to consider bad faith one would think that maybe we were leaving open the question whether deference would be appropriate if there were a finding about fay your honor certainly this court in two thousand and eight instructed on the district court and actually if you read the two thousand a decision i'm not sure is quite an instruction it was maybe a invitation to consider the evidence of the union president's statements at the two conventions in light of the plausible these are officers of a large national union who are representing a constituency of a couple hundred thousand members meeting with public officials meeting with postal service officials they have a demanding job they're constantly having meetings meals incurring expenses like parking khaki's they easily as they testified at trial and in support of summary judgment and as  honour's on know the judge on below did look at the evidence of what was said at the conventions and he considered it in light of the fries and  could talk a little bit about the two awami after yes what do you think the phrase necessary to verify means seems like there's not a whole lot of case law on your own i think one could formulate the cast in articulate the test in different in different ways but i think conceptually at bottom it's a two part cast there's just cause you have two and then there's it's written right into the statute i agree it's two parts i'm asking you what the second part is a my i think judge sullivan said what he thought it was i think he was correct in what he said was just because it's not necessary for well it that's exactly what the judge below determined in this case for example in the in the kit in the case of the mini at the minneapolis bank account records judge sullivan found we don't agree that that was correct but he found that mr noble had just cause because someone told mr noble that this allegedly unauthorized bank account existed and the person told him he was concerned about how the money was being used so judge belvin said that met the standard for just cause but what judge solving concluded correctly was it did not meet the necessary to verify standard because  you need to satisfy both the district court said whether this goes into the just cause pocket or the necessary to verify pocket district court says has to be as to the bank account  he's talked to a union official in the in the local office i think it was the president president of the local who says there is this bank account i have concern about it tom sullivan says that that is enough to why couldn't why couldn't he satisfied necessary to verify he says i want i need to see document any documents related to this this bank account and the reason i need to see them is i want i want to see if this bank account is reflected in the l m two which works like it's a pretty comprehensive document with the balance sheet all the assets all the liabilities if there is such a bank account presumably it should be on the form and that's what i want to verify and that's what and that's what judge felt that that was exactly judge sullivan the analysis not why is not a perfectly good theory at least as to documents related to the bank so judge solving i found there was just cause he found that mr noble said that what he said there should just sort of in divided the just cause into two elements and the first element according to the judge was satisfied that mr noble said what he wanted to verify which was that whether or not that many of his bank account was in the island to where corey to the judge mr noble fell short is showing how obtaining those minneapolis bank records would have assisted him in where find whether those records were in the onto and when alice but his judge saw all of and steere e sensually that mr noble pleaded himself out of court with this rather remarkable statement that only by seen every document in the union file will i be able to resolve this concern about the bank account right which seems transparently ridiculous but i'm not sure it answers the question of why couldn't and why couldn't he why wasn't he entitled to see any records about the bank account because the burden rests on the of the union address so that universe of things plus everything else every computer file every piece of paper every file in this large national union so you can call it you could you could isn't that a good request your honor that's that's a hypothetical i don't know whether that would would be a legitimate request whether judge solid and would have thought that that would have satisfy the requirement but that was not this ludicrous answer that he wanted to see the entirety of the union files and judge solid ins determination should be based on what what was before him not some hypothetical that was the statement in his what was an a material and charitably construed it to avoid forfeiture is there any way of you know reading into that some minimal relevancy limitation  dank account that was held at the minneapolis region of the national union so there is the union is divided into about fifteen separate regions and the region that includes minneapolis the  the allegation or the the suspicion is that that region of the national union that's that minister a subdivision of the national union had created this unauthorized back again to so he said the union is paying money to the landlords for the housing expense of the president and i was authorized unauthorized compensation union's response is yeah we're paying the money but it's not authorized we're deducting it from his salary so why couldn't he i'm looking at p l l two and there's a line a very specific line item on here compensation of officers some bro officer some bro title president salary one hundred thirty one thousand dollars why couldn't he have a perfectly good claim that he needs to see the underlying records regarding those payments the brad payments and  compensation associated with the to verify that this hundred thirty one thousand dollars salary is only his authorized salary rather than a an illicit cyclamen per for the housing  allowance again your honor your right i will give you the same answer it's that's not what that's not this case that's not what mr goble asked for whether in a hypothetical alternative universe that might have been inappropriate request on i prefer not to speculate that's what i thought you were going to say and thank you thank you very much stand paragraph thirty nine you know what i'm going to say right it is only by looking only by looking at the entirety of the union's records that i will be able to determine what i want to determine right but that  particular quote which is which is obviously a per se plaintiff's attempt at explaining to the district court what is exists throughout the record i'm sorry he was pro se of time yes ok and which the district court understood by himself describing what the requests were ok he had been asking from the beginning with respect to that make it count he named the bank account but he can't just look at the bank account  by the district court is unprecedented we're here mr noble is talking about he's got just cause to inquire with respect to specific expenditures of union funds those funds are necessarily included part test but whether it's viewed as a two part test or a one point test that the language and i think the knowledge court talks about the fact that the language of the statute is just cause to examine any books records or  ts necessary to verify such a report so the first question is whether necessary to verify it's just defining what you are examining or whether it's part of a separate test just a just cause but in either case we're talking about misspelling whether whether you think of it as one step for reasons judge randolph expressed toward or to us as it seems to be articulated in the statute what what is wrong with the proposition that the statute says you need just cause to think that the records are necessary to verify the on to what what that means at a minimum is but you have to take and point to something that you want to verify and explain why the records that you're seeking will help will help you make that verification well the  this particular case this or noble is pointing to expenditures whether it is the use of the big house put in a listing money into it and use it to pay for individual officers alexy expenses whether it is the housing payments made for officers each of those things are alternately need to be reflected accurately either as deductions from salary or expenses or additional report but i think that's because in this context i think too because they involve union expenditure of funds which are necessarily in the allenton so if you establish just cause then the statute tells you you are entitled to  any books and records that are necessary to verify and so mr noble here and as you can see are page nine of our applied brief we cite we quote portions of the district court decision where he actually described what mr noble requests were and it was to examine all in all three documents and records for a period of years pertaining to the bank account number x y and z it was a request to examine documents or records for that same period pertaining to c payments for housing expenses for some grand and o'connell and a crest and then the third grab that has a similar language to it and in fact that's where he went wrong was in the application of the test because that is sufficient to satisfy both sides or choir and without examining the records you can't know exactly where on the alan to those transactions and expenditures are reported i simply would agree that there there is no