dia welcome to the court we'd like to proceed as soon as you can be ready of the testimony of live witnesses by the administrative judge were all correct and should stand and ok but i don't see anywhere in this full board decision where  any demeanor based credibility assessments are altered so where is there a problem that they didn't see the witnesses faces as they testified probably the  notes and the statement and the test and the testimony of your client as to what he recalls transpired during the interview so how is it that they were missing some evidence that i don't follow and they missed the fact that i guess that's when the scribe  too fast for me ok i'm kind of figure out exactly what you think the full bore did that requires reversal that only question in front of us with a they did not take into account special agents who returned to the seat everyone was leaving out of the scope of story evidence i'm getting rid of them he found there was no coercion here i don't think this is a case that turns on credibility isn't it really more because he felt some exculpatory statements you will relating to motive should have been in the final statement the board looked at it and said this they didn't specifically say but they are thinking that this isn't  on review so the full content of what he told the agents as reflected in their notes was before all of those adjudicator so how is there any harm that the formal signed statement didn't also  explanations as it was terminated because of the people but in contesting the terminations he had the benefit of documents that showed that right from the start he gave certain explanatory statements was not treated well he found that the principal charge had not been proven and that based on the lesser of the two jar charges which he found was proven removal would be in excess of penalty but then when the board of found to the contrary that the more serious charge false occasion was also proven then that restored the predicate for the harsher penalty of removal though it seems to me you're going to have a very hard time winning with respect to the penalty being excessively harsh unless you can show that the board was committing an error to overrule an administrative judge including to find historical facts differently on the same evidence re record then the administrative judge found that's the way congress set up the system so they clearly were acting within their powers when they made a different determination on the issue of intent so unless you could show that there was something that they did that just was irrational based on this evidence it see was frustrating because the both the j in the board had before them first of all we signed statement and second the notes so as to judge michele said earlier i guess a couple minutes ago everything that one needed to assess the facts in the case was before the deciders namely the a j in the board it's not a case where some evidence was destroyed it you've got to help me out understanding how the system works this time keeping the system as i understand it people get paid this this group of subordinates and mr whalen got paid based on how many hours they actually work this out and therefore if he added hours inflated the number of hours on a given day compared to the number of hours actually worked then those postal employees would have been paid more money than if the hours we've been accurately reported believe that's correct a rout a mail carrier route is getting a lot of weather news but that's a prediction right it is it is what it is in terms of what the postal service well that's what i'm asking you and i mentioned explain how pay is calibrated so we can understand what really happened here why did they want to eight hours on the day and and did or did they even look at it i guess they don't know i mean did other people do the same router the same length of time and actually spend an hour or whatever it was i guess we should use the ten because then we're talking about over time say eight hours instead of s false immigration how many hours of un work time people were paid for because of entries he made in this computer time keeping system well we don't we do this to have bases sworn statement that there of wealth isn't government's obligation to understand the facts of the case and that you can make representations to this court that are sound absolutely hocking if you do that if you don't have any documents of what happens at the a record when you haven't reviewed the record because you didn't listen to this page you're saying mr harvey you frame whether you have to listen to the tapes by the contentions that are made that there was no indication of in the briefs that anyone else of listen to the tapes are presented a transcript on the other side that's for sure and in fact it's an argument that we do make in our brief and he relies or characterizations of hearing really should be discounted because there is there's no transcript happen to provide and no specific reference to the transcript has been provided by the  transfer what is the standard of intent here how specific does the intent have to be does it have to be that i wayland intended to cheat the taxpayers and the government out of money by falsifying the time cards of my subordinate mr shaw or does it just have to be i knew i was falsifying the records and it doesn't matter whether it involved the taxpayer money or not but what is the right standard here i not worried about what use kelly wrote in her letter i'm worried about what the underlying document says the underlying document that contains the charge of both the pick asian and gives us the standard of intent that relates to it comes from asking you if this were a crime i'm asking you what section of the penal code what section of title eighteen contains the crime that's in this case and you're telling me well it's referenced in the letter of the deciding official miss kelly that's not as responsive answer the response of answers where is it written down in the postal manual or the bargaining the collective bargaining agreement or some other document sort of sounds like a garbled as an employee manual would be one thing in the code of federal regulations is a different thing least i would suppose it would be two different things so i'm not even sure what you're saying motives are whether their motives of a good samaritan or motives does is to try and get government from the money the act is falsifying the document if you intend to falsify the document that's enough we don't look to employee so you would then argue that mr whalen knew that he wasn't miss tavernise so when he puts in her time he knows he's not her and therefore right away he's in no in we're just quoting the board's decision to but that was never put in issue