one of the union panel member as we took his deposition at the operations over after dr but and these are comments that he said he heard chairman angelo make that's the source of the information the first off i was aware of these specific comments i was aware that i thought he was not making fair rulings i was aware for instance we wanted to introduce evidence about suzy campbell h r person and he didn't do that keep in mind i was i wasn't aware of the specific prison in january of two i think the final hearing was in june sometime and they finally convened and maybe august september to write the opinion and some of these comments came out during the summer and also like we took mr ruiz is that position i opportunity i believe we got unfair evidentiary rulings i did not move to refuse him during the arbitration i didn't think during the arbitration had a basis to show there was fraud or corruption or they were exceeding their the exclusion of the meal period from a workout or that wasn't even mentioned and if you look at his award he wore says just the opposite the war says that the tour of duty includes the lunch period but there's no talked about if you're away from your employer's premises if you're not paid employees not get any benefit you're off the clock there's no tie between you and employer that was not even  on his lunch they said he was violating a rule there's one specific rule in the collective bargaining agreement that directly deals with that it's not even mentioned at all worse than that if you look at the award it says specifically the list is included so leader he totally ignored it or he twisted the facts the law also talks about his jurisdiction only thing to kind of interpret the agreement the parties the opinion apparently which is another issue the two of them were discussed which i think was not proper they were discussing and created if you let me marry draft of the opinion before the union representative even showed up we found out that later of course that was afterwards because that was and i think august september when they continued to do that but the chairman is the one who actually wrote the he's the one who i think i understand that and so i have a virus or prejudice that really does that really doesn't divide into union or employer and no i don't think so and i think his comments  the comments are the council but when you say that the retaliation for the dislike of counsel is going to be reflected in your written opinion when you ignore specific provisions the collective bargaining agreement that you're charged with internally and unfortunately when you ignore california public policy when you refuse to even hear the argument from your panel member you will even hear the argument or the discussion and i've read some of the cases where are the words were set aside and i don't think they rise to that level very rarely you going to have a guy come in admit that look i'm going to be biased and i'm going to rule against you not based on the law you have is that based on my dislike for you you're telling us about now were not known you say during the process itself is that correct i found about out about those specific comments later after the operation was over and ward before the area board of a just that's dated september three two thousand and two i can't tell you about all of it for instance one was a comment about these guys that are knock it off and they've got to stop doing this i did hear a comment like that during the hearing that's not going to get you very far the bad stuff you heard after september three well after the after the close of evidence for instance we didn't hear anything about i won't even consider the public policy until national collaboration you're very vague and confusing i want to know when you heard all this bad stuff did you hear before september three two thousand and two or not you know in the trial court would say there's a gigantic silence now well i'm trying to remember the exact dates you're trying to rely on the stuff to show bias and i'm asking you when you found out about and you don't know well i did not find out about it until after the hearing was close that's for sure is it because if you found out about it before you would begin to waive this because you didn't present it to the board tell me when you heard this stuff well i can't tell you the specific date i can tell you it was after you wrote a letter on the dated december to determine angelo in that letter informing angela the allegations so not until december did you write a letter that's correct and that's three months after the decision yes i think this is it wasn't in september and what was your purpose in writing the letter at that point the decision having been rendered was if you would voluntarily recuse himself from what what was still pending after the decision had been entered on sept twelfth on the decision making process because at that point we have the actual sworn testimony of what had occurred and definition ask for reopening for a rehearing i have to actually read my december second letter that may have been in the december second letter what it was then well let me look at