orders so please the court the petitioner elaine wells was told that she did not retain her job because she did not meet her licensing requirements however the record shows that not only did she need her licensing requirements but that she was told by the agency she met those licensing requirements are the argue otherwise fails against anything that's on the record i believe it is simple as open to any questions of this court and they have well just on the on the record question yes my understanding it is after the fact there is this email from m to mislead i'm sorry to that says now that you have the georgia license i won't have to cosign your notes that's after the fact am i right that there is no evidence that indicates that before hand that she was told even though she worked in jacksonville that a georgia license would suffice for the job and not a florida without a she didn't need to get a florida license your i believe the moment record currently does not reflect but i will know that we were not allowed to continue our discovery we initiated discovery for the order and as and as a legal matter what do you think you have to show in order to say that the board had to jurisdiction to determine whether she was properly or improperly terminated there's i think it feels a little bit i don't know chicken and egg situation that that as things stood when she was terminated she was possible factual evidence that she had been told this was enough and when that but i'm a little confused i guess about how to how to square the statutory requirement that excluded her from asking the board to correct an agency mistake in the status that she was in fact in at that time which means excluding mistakes actual mistakes with now forgive me i may be a little confused on your question toward the end but i will concede that basically may use the word may because i believe that as with regulations as the agency may remove someone after term employment period not arguing with you on that however there are exceptions as we know in law and there is an exception here clearly the agents who read the regulations to allow a term boy was under a title thirty eight medical which included my client and exempted position to have time to that's how they're interpreted in the law so we can say do is i say verses do as i do so they may have an argument but i think that's thirty eight you know based on what i'm sorry i wasn't clear based on what law did she have a right to be automatically converted to a permanent position from a temporary position when she secured her life based on the interpret forgive me and i may not have it like what i'm trying to believe it's because i believe it is total thirty eight dealing with medical personnel title five in total thirty eight dealing with medical personnel that's hired by the government the thing is sort of going back to how that's being interpreted with regards to her being converted we look at the handbook for guidance and yes i understand that the guys they can book in itself does not create a new right but even the mbox first sentence says if this is how the agencies are took and regulation then the judge should have found that had jurisdiction at this very second but my point is that ad book had to come from something that had to come from the regulatory interpretation why where is the being the agencies to just make handbooks just cell and it's certainly says right in the inside cover that it's not meant to be interpreted as such and so i'm trying to understand what the source of the law is because the hymn book is not a source of law and agency interpretations of regulations yes can be given deference but i'm i don't yet understand as i sit here what language do you think that would be a handbook statement is purportedly interpret of the agency before frankly that would have been discovered in discovery maybe even a far and agency has the right to dismiss develop the petitioner but we have the right to discover it to understand why they did it because the agency hasn't met its burden to show that there wasn't jurisdiction before the court this argument made to the agencies that if it might have worked after discovery after the show will know this is how we've always done it this is how it always interpreted it they have to explain the handbook because we weren't the pattern and practice of the agency this is how they interpret the regulations they acknowledge that we get an opportunity to allow you to get licensed and to see if you fit i i believe it's but looking at appendix twenty seven through the second paragraph of the last census failed to become a license or certified within the amount of time the result removal the g s one eighty five social work series day in may appointment to last three years it will still automatically expire at the end of the three years this wells did not have anything in writing she was not promised that she would converted to energy at the end of three years petitioner says that the handbook says that she was to be automatically appointed however the hand regulations and benefits it is to be used only as a source of general information and should not be considered definitive guidance since the policies and regulations and benefits it describes me occasionally be revise or supersede briefing refers that it was a failure to convert you can't have it both ways she was not terminated the agency did not perform any type of employment function that was a function that allow her to file an appeal with the board she had a time limited term appointment with a specific limited time that was to expire at the end of three years the agency simply allow have to cosign on your note did not have any authority to appoint her to anything and if petitioner claims that there was a failure to appoint then a failure to appoint really amounts to a failure from her temporary appointment status to a permanent appointment so she receives the requisite license i can't even find that language anywhere in the v a here book now your proof brief basically focuses on well no matter what's in the v appointments in any event so she doesn't have a right to be converted there's nothing in the handbook that refers to the type of appointment which mrs wells received unfortunately the agency allow unfortunate for ms wells the license there is also nowhere with the agency advised her that her georgian license was the appropriate license to for her to have gotten even if it considered that they were that the agency was going to a no i'm so bewildered because even if i don't even see that the agency guarantees the conversion of a temporary employee to a permanent employee even if they get the perk perfect and appropriate license no there is no guarantee she has nothing in writing she has nothing even orally in orally would not count but she has nothing in writing that the that she had a guarantee or any right to be converted to a permanent employee even ha received the license they appropriate for permanent license in florida so she have a time limited appointment that expired when it was suppose those do expire she was told at the beginning is the section to which she refers refers to the types of actions over which the board had jurisdiction and she does not fit in either one of those categories and unless you have additional questions of me  orders thank you even if the handbook is for you to the specific language that we're discussing here and yes like knowledge there may be initial where the regulations are coming from i invite the court to look at appendix the agency again interpreted regulations quote according to our records you know it is just a license to practice social work independently without the need and without the need of supervision of your practice as have not met the condition of employment with agency and you are not eligible for conversion to a permanent employment appointment for social work spender specified exit and so on and so forth there is nothing in the record that reflects that my client does not have the right license there is nothing in the record that reflects that she has to have the license of a particular state i also posit why else may she had been fired she also has an ongoing he complained because she was out of for mark for excuse me for a medical leave but i realize that's not especially the issue here today there is no evidence that she had the wrong license for a lot of the gap of how the agency was thinking or why the e c did what they did well unfortunately we don't know that because we were denied discovery we were denied the opportunity question obtain facts and records and e mails not only do we have our conversion argument we also had an interference argument person not prohibited personnel practice