oh please the court i did reserve three minutes for you bottle up your honors we're here today as part of an appeal we believe that the district court  erred in this particular matter s f was denied an application for food stamp program if one goes back to the agency decision it's very narrow the agency relied on three factors claiming that the candidate lacked the business integrity to be a part of the program very specifically on a number for the application they indicated that he did not tell the truth when he indicated that no other owner that had been previously denied was a part of the business they relied on three items they relied on number one that there was evidence that was a signature on a bank account we provided affidavits we provided testimony and we provided several documentation where ninety nine percent of the other documentation including state filings for the income tax filings to five five three i r s filings every document ninety nine percent of the documents showed that she was not an officer of the company as for the signing does not limit the factors not limited to officers is a i don't think it is for i think it's three matters i think that the first issue is whether she was an officer and in their denial they said that was one of the reasons we show by a preponderance that on one bank statement when she signed a signature card that a mistake was made every other document for years prior showed every filing for the state of michigan the liquor control commission the i r s tax forms showed that she specifically was not an officer in fact not an officer not an officer of the corpus so he did not lie he is there a distinction between being an officer and for example being an authorized signatory well your honor i think there is there is an awful very serious distinction number one if you look at an officer of the corporation when you look at the bylaws or limited liability company there comes a thort management responsibilities there become decision making responsibilities as a sign or on a checking account there are many many businesses that there are signers on checking accounts they are processors it's a matter of convenience in this particular case we demonstrated that this is an only son it's a mother he needed someone else on is just a sign checks in the event he wasn't there the evidence shows that she didn't sign one check it was just a necessary convenience i would point out to the court to that in the sea of farmers or any law there is no case on point that says that being a sign or on a bank account makes you financially involved in a business or operating interest in  business or any case to the cod her there is not your own i believe it's a lack of definition and i believe this is kind of a first impression where the court and the n f s kind of took an overbroad definition and to imply that a signer on a checking account is financially involved in the business could be disastrous to define that a signer on a bank account it has an operational interest in a business that could be disastrous that's a very over broad definition and i think we have to bring that back and say what is a science aside that's all it is we can say number numerous occasions where controllers and companies they're an employee they have a they sign a check on this you see people and businesses were an employer might be gone they say leave a check and have somebody sign it because they're out of the country it doesn't not mean they have an interest they get there they're not a particular interest they don't share in the profits the signer did not there's no evidence that the signer to say was an employee there is no evidence that the signer he made any management decisions there's no evidence supported by the tax returns that there is any financial relationship with the exception of one and that's the third item that the f and s and the lower court relied on that is the least relationship and the only case we could find was an out of district case and that's the huggins case which seems to support our position to be a lease or and a lease see even though the mother owned the company that does not mean she has a financial interest in his company it's a contract relationship where one agrees to pay x on a dollars plus terms under the condition of  service relied on the documents correct i believe they were they relied on your honor if you go back to the agency decision and agency decision the finals even on review they relied on paragraph number four that's what they relied on the page five the decision in that and the they based the documents on one document that was the docket document that had the signature card from the bank i'm trying to figure out kind of what the evidence sheree picture was at the time the district court granted summary judgment so the court had before it prominent defend the documents and the information whether in the lease or otherwise that the mother was the l'amour project and what did you offer in opposition to the motion for s business records yes we did yes we did what we did as far as that we had we had the text we had the michigan articles incorporation with a liquor control we were documented that he was the president secretary we far as a sign or we had an unauthorized bank letter because the bank is would not give a affidavit on it but we did get a letter and we explained it to them we gave them everything we possibly could as far as documentation it was all laid out if you would weigh the evidence that we gave them as to the sign or capability it was ninety nine percent tilted our way as to the lease we just couldn't find anything except the huggins case we could not find  f r or any documentation said that a lease and a lease a relationship constitutes a financial involvement or an operational interest in owning company we just going to find  language that the district court pointed to it isn't limited to operational or involvement or financial interest it also has that catchall  that no one involved in previous snap violation is associated with this business in any manner so what does that mean in terms of the less or less arrangement your honor i can look at the reasonable person test on that are you could take that as far out as humanly possible i would not though were simply taking it to the i would not imagine he was the less i would not think that a lesser or less e u would come to the conclusion that they financially involved but in your business isn't a requirement of financial in any involved in any manner and that's where my problem is you are once again i think an argument we i think there needs to be some clarification is that it's it's such an overbroad definition you could take that to the ends of a of an employee you could go so far out in and i think with that what the f and s is trying to determine is is there a relationship coming back where there's a profit are they managing are they actively controlled in this business i think more than likely that has to be the intent i can't see other in any other intent i think the court is stretching it so far out that it doesn't make the rule doesn't make sense i think if you look at financially involved or associated yes it is his mother without a question without a question that his mother and yes she owned a building  that the huggins case indicates that's no reason to deny the disclosure issue i'm not sure those questions are so vague so vague and the interpretation of financial wall definition is not there the overbroad interest is not there and i don't know how to puts that back in the box if you can interpret it any way you came she was suspended from this for twenty years before this well your honor that's the first of all that's a question of debate and  the issues are what's the well here's the debate your honor if the debate is simply this when the petition was denied and on the up of the appeal brief that was not the issue the issue that we appear suspended better this case they denied it for that was not the issue the issue they deny to force those three i told you then when they brought up the disqualification that the test is knowingly knowingly submitting false information what we brought up at the at the hearing is that with the f m s she was she was at the she sold her business on december fourth doc fourteenth two thousand and fourteen she was active so the test is did mr farrah knowingly know she was disqualified how could he know she's been qualified when he worked in a store she were accepting food stamps she was going through the program and nobody said anything how would he know and that's a real serious reasonable question that should a better question for the district court to decide well it was never suspected they didn't know there's nothing that they can do to your cry they did not submit any affidavit and if you go to go to the saunders test we're both required to submit affidavits if you go it was submitted they knowingly submit false information knowingly we've demonstrated that he didn't know she was assigned it was a mistake is a big mistake there absolutely was she was assigned she's an officer you're an officer your honor an officer an officer your honor and an officer he did not know she was an officer arranged for her to be put on the bike and candy he arranged to have her on the bank account not as an off that was a bank mistake without a question we admit she was an a sign or the officer situation was an absolute mistake and that bank account the other part of it the disqualification knowingly submitting false information he didn't because she was at the flea operating actively not follow from there that he was there only participating in the program your honor the fact the matter was or she was she might have been operating in disregard of the disqualification or if i might respectfully say you're have two situations you've got the federal government coming in saying she's disqualified with no proof at all just just an agency notation that she was my gentleman fills out the application working in the store taking the stamps she doesn't sell a store till december fourteenth two thousand and fourteen much after the affidavit the most natural thing for him to done in that situation have been to contest the fact of disqualification and when that would be easy to determine one way or another that wasn't the that wasn't the reason for the denial your honor the reason for the denial was he submitted false information  was involved if you if this court rules that a lease or lease or relationship really know exactly what i was there thinking you about i'm not i'm sorry you're on i did i missed the question then if basically what i said was that the most natural thing here if he had not been permanently disqualify that would have been to contest that because it could very easily have been established if the notation you complain about within that from a stag your honor is absolutely correct the reason we did not is because that was not the issue of denial the issue of denial specifically was he lacked the business integrity because he did not tell the truth on paragraph four paragraph four specifically of the snap application that and that's in their brief that they put that they've moved for s judgment that's what the reason that the in front of her involvement is permissible is i mean is the i dealt with the hand that we were dealt with from the actual documentation and the reasons for denial i understand that when you appeal a case you take a look at why they denied you specifically you answer those specific questions the three questions that i told you is the reason for the denial that she was an officer that she was a signer in the lease relationship those are the three those are the only three we addressed each and every one of good morning runners ma'am please the court my name is jennifer newby on behalf of the government the government asks that this court affirm the decision of the district court granting summary judgment because the district court properly found there was no genuine dispute as to mr perez knowledge of his mother's permanent disqualification when he completed the snap application and number two of his mother's financial involvement with easy party shop at that time was already proof about the qualification of his mother some  district court which was never then supported with evidence what happened in this case is the government filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings relying on the pleadings which included the agency decisions the agency decisions found that mr farrow violated seven us two zero two one before and seven c f r two seven eight point six one when he provided false information regarding his mother's involvement with easy party shop those violations necessarily require that mr farah have the requisite knowledge that his mother had been permanently disqualified this was an undisputed fact before the agency and then also in the district court the government filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings the pleadings i ncluded those agency decisions and then mr farrah submitted information that required the motion to be converted to one for summary judgment and then didn't provide any evidence to support your ever serious suggests that the agency decision was not summary judgment certainly attached the agency decisions which made those findings based on when he says that he's wrong correct your honor so mr farron never disputed that his mother had i'm sorry that he was aware of his mother's permanent to quote disqualification until the time of the hearing at the time of the hearing mr farris counsel not mr farrah made the allegation that mr farrah was unaware of his mother's disqualification the district court then ask mr farris counsel if that were true how come that fact was never raised with the agency or with the court up to that time mr perez counsel had no clear answer the district court then pointed out that the affidavit that mr farris submitted in support of his response to the motion for summary judgment also did not support that allegation and that there was no other evidence in the record that evidence a dispute as to mr farrow's knowledge and that's the basis on which summary judgment was granted as to that issue there simply was no dispute there had support his allegation that he was unaware but he did not because the government's motion was properly supported by the pleadings the nonmoving party mr fair i had an obligation then to demonstrate that there was some evidence that this issue was in dispute he didn't and the district court promptly found there was no genuine dispute the district court also properly found that there was no genuine dispute regarding mr perez mother's financial involvement with easy party shop it's undisputed that she was both the landlord of easy party shop and that she was an authorized signer on the corporate bank account and that she could conduct a banking on behalf of easy party shop independent of mr farah no one disputes those two facts the district court found that those two facts established as a matter of law that mr farrow's mother was financially involved with easy party shop now that did not mean that his application had to be denied it just meant that he needed to disclose that information to the agency so the agency could make a determination whether that impacted his eligibility the reason that this case that his application was denied was his failure to provide that information not because his mother was a signer on the bank account or as of this number six on th questionnaire that he had was that considered by the by the agency your brother court number six where he did where he denied that he had a really a relative who had been there and yes it was although it wasn't a focal point of the case the dispute had always been from mr farris side that his mother was not financially involved and she was not an officer she was not involved in the business so that sort of had a background role but yes that was also a failure to provide correct information  resources put into the snap program are used to further the purposes of the program and not for fraud in order to do this retailers must disclose any relevant information on their application it's so important for us to be able to receive candid and accurate information from retailers in order to assess their business integrity and reputation that their regulations require that a retailer that submits false information on an application that could affect eligibility must be permanently denied and that's what happened in this case mr farron knew that his mother had been permanently disqualified when he completed the application and that she was financially involved with easy party shop and he failed to disclose that information his application was then permanently denied as a result which was a valid administrative action the district court properly granted summary judgment and the government asks that this court affirm that decision was there any kind of proof before  because that any when it no your honor what was in the record is that she was permanently disqualified for her involvement with food mart food food mart market i think i'm sorry i may be butchering that name but it's food mart she was partly disqualified in relation to that store at the hearing before the district court not at all before the agency mr farris counsel alleged that despite that permanent disqualification she was still operating in a different store called paradise food market i can go be on the record if you like to to give some further explanation for that but at the end of the water board before the court of the agency about that nothing your honor nothing at all and that's and that's the underlying factor there was never a dispute as to his knowledge or whether has mother had been disqualified at any time in till the hearing before the district court and at that time the motion was going to be converted to one for summary judgment because the plaintiffs submitted evidence outside of the pleadings that the court considered and the pla failed to submit any evidence to put that into dispute so we asked them that the court affirmed the decision of the district court as the court of any further questions we cannot thank you counsel him just very short rebuttal your honor if the court looks at exhibit ten point six which is the application is specifically as handwritten under paragraph four and six sixteen fourteen that agent called mr fair and indicated that his mother is related to him by birth and that she was personally disqualified that's what it says in that report the agency decision after the appeal from the agency further indicates in that decision it was based on that paragraph number four it makes absolutely no reference to paragraph six at all the court will not find that secondly they say there's not an affidavit and your honor there is an affidavit it's exhibit number one if one looks at paragraph number seven and the paragraph states that my client stated under oath that he did not lie under the application that he filed with snap that saying that he did not lie follows through that he did not lie when he said no his mother was not disqualified there is one key point the word is knowingly knowingly nobody talks about that knowingly that's the reason for a permanent if out disqualification when you look at these as if i see a farce there's no knowing there's no evidence that he knew in fact he denied he knew he thought he said even under affidavit he thought he was being truthful and i think we're just stretching it a little bit were making implication on honor i don't think i don't have any record that she's disqualified i can tell you this that on december fourteenth she turned her snap license back into the federal government i can tell you that the agency magnifier to that i did not see any findings on the record your honor i only thing i saw on the record was in the agency's final decision that made reference to a disqualification there was nothing placed before the court that she had actually been disqualified and we take into consideration an affidavit in eleven point one we denied that we lied on every single point and i think there are so many questions of fact here that it should be remanded in fairness and i just believe that that is the right thing to do in this particular case i know there's a there's a lot of odd circumstance but i think this is one of those odd cases and and i think you go back to the three items i just don't i think we have questions of fact in the tried a reasonable bare of trier would rule in our favor your honor so thank you thank you counsel the case will be submitted quickly call the n