employers the respondent has knowledge of such employment in wages for miles such employers shall be considered as is from the liable lawyer so in this case it's arcane in that sense the petitioner was working as a minister is wages as a minister should be computed as if it was part of his area its average weekly wage for the liable employee now the employer should have known even if they didn't that you was working for pay he served as a pastor for sixteen years he worked at a church that had one hundred to one hundred fifty members keeper but he went to church every wednesday night and he also worked from sundays from nine to two it seems strange to me that someone would put that much time in as a minister pastor and not be paid well if his or assumption to fill in the caps because tell me if i missed something  being paid but the act that doesn't doesn't make doesn't make sure it doesn't force us to do to prove that he actually says that they have knowledge of such employment and so if you start out by saying work for  the fact of matter is and the fact that he decided to keep that private in my opinion is you relevance to the facts of the case they were clearly aware that he was a minister they had been to funerals  brower old plant managers knew that he worked as a minister and he darling another plant manager knew that he worked as a as a minister marilyn the company nurse jury holly all the people at the plant he was  they should have known that he was being paid by the amount of work that he was doing there's no presumption is there in the statute that says if you simply don't know that he's being paid there's no presumption in the statute but you know i think that then you're starting to to raise a whole nother issue of splitting hairs between nails on the head here for everything that is is really in dispute here i was going to argue about why it shouldn't be the dyno standard council to make that argument because i do think it's manifest weight i think there is an issue this special issue is what's in cite you've already cited just the side of some where you said look his own testimony was none of their business basically and you know if throughout the course of the case that that answer was really sort of held most of his answers were for all kinds of things that happened through the course of the case it really was none of their business in his mind and maybe it is none of their business the problem with that is he doesn't really get to claim it then if he wants it to be none of their business and my counsel said he said you know he doesn't know it keeping it private is relevant of course it's relevant because it keeps a private they don't know and that's the the problem in the act is they have to know about the wages the only other thing that i will highlight for you before i sit back down is a lot of these issues he talks about well he should have known and they had all these other things and everything but they didn't know it was a job and some of his own evidence is this religious discrimination claim that he made look nestle has really good lawyers besides me as well who handle those things it was a second job that's their defense to the religious tipis to mr discrimination claim is this isn't religious discrimination because we want to work wednesdays we just don't want to work a second job they knew it was a second job where he was making wages that's a defense they did  you know they gave him his accommodation based on a religious accommodation not based on this is a second job there was his chance to argue they knew way back then but they didn't know because he kept it from him because he will last that claim you don't get a high something wages and it's not against the manifest way his own testimony is really what hurt his claim more than anything else part of the reason there's not a lot of people from nestle testifying they didn't know it because they never really identify felt that they have hearing who may have known and then i didn't need them for