the next argument is an appeal number zero five thirty two zero five bradley versus the partner in the homeland security it's how does that create a problem for agent bradley if the heart of the interview was not recorded because the paper recorder was turned off and he later answers the written questions if the questions deal with something not on the recording then there's no danger to him that he would contradict himself because the only recitals about that transaction version a in a tape recorder girl interview and later gave us materially different accounts of the same transaction in written answers the question then there would be a conflict between the tape and the written answers and maybe the conflict would be somehow used as the foundation of an assertion of misconduct but if the tape is missing of that transaction and it's only described to understand why the testimony of the two agents would be of any relevance they would as i understand it have corroborated bradley's assertion that sometimes the tape is turned off but even so i don't see how that would to prove anything of any value to mr bradley they when they see him right here they will allow a well i didn't see that mr bradley requested to hear the tape before he gave written the answers i understood him to simply say i'm not willing to give the written answer so i don't understand how the of cooperation afforded the other two asians agency didn't deny him an opportunity to review this here the paper have a copy of the tape then how does he have any basis to complain of some unfairness because he didn't have the t is there some other testimony or document that you feel with the was wrongly excluded in a way that the the made the hearing somehow or a mockery or totally unfair or something oath and asking zach with the same question that might strike at least me as questionable if not abusive but that doesn't seem to be even close to the facts we have here it as i understand it we have lead to major inquiries by the agency one oral interview on tape and then later a twenty nine question of a document that he was asked to respond to and he refused he refused to answer the twenty one questions in that the second inquiry and i'm calling so we don't seem to have repetition that could be viewed at least the by me is abusive we have an oral interview followed by a request in the written questions under oath and he refuses and i don't see that there's any room to said that the twenty nine written questions had all been fully answered in the world in your right and so my question was how are we to verify that that is true that i no if if the twenty nine questions have all been answered and then he related questions the recurring to the interviewing agents have also been answered and therefore the written document is one hundred percent repetitive of you might have some argument i couldn't see from the materials we were given that the written questions at all been fully explored in the  the employee has given an affidavit given an interview written up in hand or any other sort of communication the agency has a right to ask pertinent questions whether or not there's been a a spontaneous or voluntary submission of were right then to find the agent and some incident happens and i'm being investigated as a result of my conduct in that incident i can write up a memo and say this memo contains because they either do or in the case of some non truth tellers don't tell the same story in two separate sentences is in the eye of the holder typically and it is not an unfamiliar l enforcement technique to go back to people in as some similar are the same questions and see if they give the same answers if they don't it gives you a pretty red flag that there's problem so what's wrong with that this is a serious case  person not so what's wrong with going back second time and saying let's see what you have to say in writing and let's compare that with what you said in your own station if there's a disparity we'll focus in on that and see problem or not no your honor the undisputed evidence shows that the conduct of mr bradley was charged with occurred he admits that he refused to and that's not relevant the the argument being made by opposing counsel is that the investigator for the he was repetitive and abusive and ill motivated what what's your answer on those particular arguments says he's made certainly under the response to the allegations that papers do the papers on some of the time off some of the time and the issue being explored seemed to be the practice of having the tape up some of the time sounds like so far that's exactly the same situation we're on today we're only able to testify as to the facts of investigation in general by the internal affairs aren't they did not have specific information regarding mr bradley which were little but they knew all of the use of the pay for their own interviews did they not i believe they did but i believe and i thought that was the proffer that they would of the buy that when they were the target of an investigation and they were interview that the tape was turned off including at times where substantive information was being given that if i don't know if it's true or not who doesn't even matter whether it's school or not that was the proper that they were and why wouldn't that have been relevant that your honor i don't see how that would influence the underlying question that  mr bradley did not cooperate with the internal affairs investigation it's admitted that he did not provide the written declaration after he was requested to provide it and were provided by his his  who excluded agents would have cost about how the tape recording was turned off during their interviews in like fashion when it should have been on the nurses in fact that has no relevance to the case i don't understand the relevance of  answer if you turn the tape off her part of his answer you're you're creating a false record because you're capture some of the sentences and you exclude other sentences that sounds very suspicious to me your honor there conflicting evidence in the record there was testimony by by witnesses that the tape recorder was only turned off when used or bradley was reviewing documents or left the room well and if that's the truth then whether that evidence should have been before the fact finding bring your own or however the administrative judge found that even if that had been entered into toss them into evidence that it couldn't have changed the ultimate question of whether or not mr bradley cooperated with the internal affairs investigation and he cited to the to the regular the regulation which says that you you know if there's an internal affairs investigation you have to cooperate with you have to respond to questions whether or written even if the investigating and being conducted huge i don't know but it's not clear on the face of this that their testimony would have utterly nothing to do with bradley have to moni about this because his version of violence then it is that the paper according  his case was carried off at inappropriate times and they would have been corroborated with the presumably because they would have said i believe that during their interview the tape was also turned off at inappropriate time cooperated with the internal affairs investigation and the how exactly was his eye looking part and i thought i had it located but right here help me what exactly was his and therefore at most would be harmless there just aren't as i was starting to say the facts are that these with proposed witnesses only could testify as to the general question of having been investigated by internal affairs they were different investigators different during different periods they weren't exactly similar situated to mr bradley they they didn't have any direct knowledge of the investigators in the case or the information regarding the treatment of an individual who refused to provide an affidavit they were just generally saying that internal affairs investigators may turn paper on and off it wasn't direct evidence responding to information your honor and the agency produced the relevant portions of chapter three but refused to produce the entire chapter claiming law enforcement privilege on the right and i do not believe that the portion was it was produced in discovery but i do not believe it was in the administrative record the part that was produced i don't believe so  the can you help us of all i said twenty nine written questions to the substance of the tape recorded interview your energy agency had stipulated that they were the same questions back and expand on my hand or that would be quite logical that they will by all means let's have a second round of questioning because you have something that that's not the fact that he didn't come back and want to add anything they wanted him the investigator wanted explanation but i but if you have your confession that is the exact same questions he left orally it's not entirely clear to me why the agencies thought it was so important to get the same answers in just a form of  and your honor i mean you know when you're asked a question i mean frequently when i'm walking back to my office from this courthouse i think that's how i should have answered the question that one of the judges posed if that goes back to what i said if the witness wants to come i would have a that in most cases the witnesses aren't going to come back and say oh i by the way i want to go back and be reinterviewed under oath is a chance for them to allow them to reflect briefly on the questions they gave and  honor i don't know the answer to the question whether it was the agency's procedure there was testimony from the special agent in charge of the that was the way they had done all of their investigations in that office i would assume it's consistent  say i remember further details about the following aspect of the transaction and so i'm able now in writing to give more details than those they were to give her for why can't that be part of