combine your argument so you're going to address all three cases with ten minutes and then you reserve five minutes for rebuttal is that  correct and then also the counsel for the government you've each are going to take five minutes to address each one of the cases yes are you going to argue in the order that i had there before correct you can assume that we've read the the briefs and were familiar with the background in the facts of the case perhaps you can proceed to the legal arguments on the first case and then take it in order for the an this is not the case with the standard of integrity as far as integrity is concerned a rookie elio and a thirty year veteran elio i mean the components having the same amount of integrity at the same time at the same job and doing whatever they do is it a question of integrity or reset a question of the standard that that the department it's holding to the to the different officers because of the position they occupied in other words if you are a supervisory agent and you have  by history obligations and duties shouldn't that person be held to a higher standard when it comes to honesty and integrity well i think your honor the dancer dissuade what you're saying and i'm not trying to evade the question but you're have the standard of integrity of the thirty year veteran if you're going to look at the integrity issue i think the issue before us is whether or not they example mr island mr month along or whether they were treated other officers mr yell or receive a different penalty when he was charged differently than the other officers to make that argument before the board yes i think i believe we did that we did on our group twenty eight most of them don't we don't i don't see in the record at this april of two thousand and fourteen or fifteen rather i can recall right now but that's when it came down and with the other agents and other n g o s and i already had their hearing so for the case or the interview is based on a criminal subject and criminal crime something something criminal that he has a right to remain silent that would be more in line with girth ok but this is disparate treatment when the agency's regulations and procedures mounting and the special agent provide certain documents and certain rights to the interview we there's no question they have to do it  my understanding is that kalki koechlin price we're in order to protect an employee from being removed from a position as a result of the employee asserting their right to remain right to remain silent no mr al a was not told in administrative matters you can remain silent they did give him the garrity warning and say if you feel that you will be criminally prosecuted you can invoke your fifth amendment rights which to me given that calculating warnings it in substance with the a w a for no sir i don't i don't believe that that's the case the regulation of the procedure from the agency a fourteen day suspension the same set of facts the only difference between these two individuals is that one of the supervisor which is mr medina and one is not a supervisor which is mr aris or there's perhaps the other differences and again this is the record shows that mistreatment dina a like the other officer she was found to have acted willfully i don't believe that's the case or i don't think in this particular case mr medina and his wife was the one who's in charge of finance that's been consistent all the way through she's the one who's in charge of all his finances she's the one who does the tax returns he's on who selects are all he does is go to work and provide his check in all reality and in all reality his wife is a more sophisticated individual between the two she works for college and she works as a college administrator and she has her degree mr dell has a high school education and whatever his wife says he goes along he loves her there's no question about it he loves her so she provided an affidavit which was presented at the previous stages and it was accepted as part of the record where she says it was my responsibility i'm the one that's in charge of these things he basically went in and signed his office signed his tax return which is what he's supposed to do according to the marriage and he walks back down takes care of  and sold to me i think the calkins issue goes away it's said you not record with we can't fire you for claiming your fifth amendment privilege that was the first notice and the second one said anything you say here can be used against you in the criminal case that was the second notice now suppose for a minute that those were not given to him and he's just thinking i better cooperate so he's got a choice either his silen i just wanted to clarify that i don't know but getting to the answer to your question in the absence of those warnings could it really be the case that the underlying fifth amendment problem of coercion and doesn't apply because sealing the coersion he chose option a rather than your honor this it's important to remember we're dealing here with prophylactic rules to protect the right and self incrimination the only implicated when you're trying to exclude evidence from criminal cases so there's no risk here it's long as the agency isn't using any compelling statement against him in a criminal proceeding then there is no fifth amendment south incrimination should he is not  already determined that they were not going to prove criminal proceeding right correct and in any event this warned him that he couldn't they couldn't use any statements here against him in a criminal proceeding essentially that provided use immunity to him intent i think the administrators judge made there is once the sentence in her decision about recklessness but i think there's an earlier sentence where she's basically finding inten i find that the appellant's testimony regarding his assertion that he did not intentionally file a false tax return or preferred false information on his two thousand and seven tax return with the intention of defrauding the ceiling or misleading fourteen she states as a result i find this is right before the subheading as a result i find that the appellant filed a false tax return and intended to defraud the government through his reckless disregard for the truth a supervisor he was held to a higher level of trust he was in charge of six employees below him i'm sure it was not a supervisor two their conduct was extremely different for one mr respect never going to fraud and  struck by the administrative judge to only have reasonably relied upon the advice of his tax the tax preparation company that both men used this regina on the other hand did admit to fraud on multiple occasions and again his conduct was much more serious than that the amounts were seventy two thousand one hundred ninety dollars term medina's arguing that he is like mr rhys payne in the sense that both of them were quite cavalier about the tax returns it didn't really know anything about the contents of the tax returns and so for one mr b that knew that his wife had told him that they were playing with the numbers so that they could achieve a higher tax return beyond that mr big machine admitted and the administrative judge noted this initial decision that before signing these two thousand and twelve tax returns where he claimed over ten thousand dollars that you're in trouble contributions he asked his wife can we actually did we actually make this trouble contribution and because he questioned it that whether or not they could be admitted in this affidavit they could not afford travel contributions mouse i'm sure you were i think about to say he asked his wife did we actually and then you changed course because i'm not sure the record says that he asked her and she said no as opposed to from the hearings the court the ministry of judge actually listened to the investigative hearing testimony and so so beyond the affidavit we also have the statements of mr medina made and in those statements and i would hate to paraphrase to be wrong so i want to find the initial decision and i will in a second but my understanding of it was a he did question his wife and despite his misgivings about whether or not they could actually make that there's also the fact that in two thousand and nine or rather for tax year two thousand and nine when he noticed that some of his colleagues were being audited mr bean and his wife then switched from business tax to an r block that particular tax year the trouble contributions went from thirty thousand dollars the year before to nine hundred dollars the year after now the following two years when it appeared that mr dean was not going to be audited again the charitable contribution amounts jumped to over ten thousand dollars per year so the conduct getting back to just a penalty was much more serious in that there was both direct and circumstantial evidence that mr medina intentionally the fraud of the government was taxes for that reason it was decided it's madness i'm running out of time so quickly get to the other remaining substantial evidence that indicates that he knew exactly what his wife was doing he reviewed the taxes for filing them and that he signed them under perjury my final argument relates to whether or not certain quote wait  be given to the fact that i rested not take a second section two to the taxes a question and for that you simply say that we have no idea whether or not the iris ever conducted an investigation whether or not they did is relevant for this particular purpose agents are the ones who produce that is from the so called recordings and i think we've already gone into that in arguments and i agreed that we have like an hour and fifty minutes or an hour and a half of t when he was in there for over eight hours so we feel that that only he didn't receive the full scope of what was actually said that these so called interact interviews are in rugged interact only was able to go by what the other attorneys have decided that we have what's before us even though i requested it in writing that they produced the entire record all we got was like an hour and a half i could let me just see is the evidence i know what was produced i know that there's evidence that the interview was much longer than what was produced the specific question is is there evidence that the entirety was taped  are we talking about a real possibility that they gave you all that tape they ever had when i ask your honor when we had mr morsi enter and deposition we asked him where is the entire who are you had him for over eight hours if you combine all the interviews that he went to and all that was produced was about a not that an hour and a half two hours we asked him about the disparity and he didn't address it just couldn't be can articulate an answer it came out of the same thing follow its own come get rule and that in itself is a violation mean they violated their own procedures their own regulations period and that that should be enough to t return they don't have that authority they don't have the education they don't have the experience they will have the knowledge to be able to do this make that kind of charge against the employee now if irish did it i would understand it but