it's going to make a difference it at four thirty with a good shop was being close to the cash registers everything else lose your are your argument now to me doesn't seem to be about the admissibility of this evidence that you seem to be using it as an attempt to disprove testimony that the administrative judge accepted but since it wasn't part of the record we're not permitted to use it for that purpose hedges by her own testimony the judge accepted her credibility and if you go by ms actions testimony and accept that it's uncontroverted impossible physical fact for her to have gone through that area office  motor and this is like a very heavy steel door it comes down and it totally seals this off so for a very this was totally seal the horn of this hype has the testimony that the judge except that she would have had to go through a stra solid steel door to get to go to the employ our counsel even if it was down at the time but there is also testimony that the door is operated by i suppose a security personnel with the key correct and it and there was testimony about who did what when and and the administrative judge made a determination based upon the assessment of all of the credibility of all the witnesses that testified and the judge made it again we did we are obviously arguing that this witness was not credible but what is important is we accept everything that the judge accepted from this witness her testimony i testifying that it happened with precision at four thirty every day she's that explicit that tied the knot and that she doesn't believe that the door is locked at four thirty every day so will it be your possibility argument only survives if she doesn't make a credibility determination that the door's not locked every day or thirty there was no other no evidence that was ever present it to were both our evidence to discern the that this area was closed off at four thirty every day so that museum was opened and specialist rodriguez also testified the same thing that my client routinely testified the same thing no other witness was ever cal common law and that requires analysis in each case by administrative judge and certainly admissibility of hearsay evidence and we certainly don't argue that the ministry or process that you can't use hearsay evidence is used all the time but there is a factor a process in our atlanta analytical framework that must be used and one of the things that you're looking for is is the witness a disinterested witness and also if the statement was not taken as a routine matter such as one  was very substantial evidence to his wife's testimony and we did not get the chance to cross examine him we thought we would because the government did arrange his deposition we were waiting for that and suddenly it was canceled there was no and there were arranging his deposition he was at germany at the time and processing to go to iraq but they can't so that while they have the opportunity we're going to do a video teleconference so again the question becomes do we  are we going to the obligation to bring in a hostile witnesses and present the government's case or do we wave our right to complain about the fact that this judge failed to do her analysis we definitely have it right to bring that up because that is an analytical framework that the administrative judge is supposed to go through or she does necessary have to say we're going to cough and she doesn't necessarily say these are the eight factors but she has to show a demonstrated attempt to do some type of analysis as to the way this should be a bit and what this husband said was very very serious he says what he meant is showing the stain on her her jacket and that i didn't do anything about it but i mean i took into consideration she was crying she was if we had the right to cross examine him this man's and my client is lost his job is financially in ruin and we certainly should have had that right to do that cross examination we certainly should not be compelled to bring him and it is our it could it he could have it could've been done from iraq is with her up and soldiers testify from iraq by telephone so all of that could have been done we think is are an abuse of discretion well you're into your rebuttal time and we'll save she left at the door that she ordinarily left there so so i don't know what you are what you can establish that i don't understand i don't care where the doors are i mean she said she did not see him she did not she said she did not see anyone or she doesn't re judge went on to say ok i don't need the schematic ask them some questions i don't care about matt schematic it's not drawn to scale and therefore i'm not making it into evidence she made a specific finding that it was not relevant to her determination of the credibility of these witnesses pursuant to this court's controlling precedent credibility is virtually unreviewable unless there is uncontrovertible evidence to the contrary and this case there is nothing in evidence that now come into this court and argue that he was somehow deprived of some due process right as this court has repeatedly held the determination of credibility and also whether to accept hearsay evidence this discretion that was left up to may again the appellant should not be required to present the government's case i've used to represent the government always had or resent the government's case i never expected the employee to present my case for me and this case the government arranged for sergeant hudgens to testify at the last minute they dropped it we did not have control of sergeant he started to this was in the federal republic of germany we had no control over him and we expected that he would testify and then he was dropped we should not be murder and we have not committed any type of waiver that bradley case in other cases have said that is totally irrelevant whether the appellate brings four of the hostile witnesses and also the government improper for the judge to turn down our exhibit and not at least i could not even lay a foundation for it i could not even make an offer proof i could not even put it in the detective exhibit file the judge totally rejected me on everything thank you