assistance to civilian law enforcement will because they can so the two aspects to it one in force meant and one providing assistance now maybe he was not actively engaged in forstmann activities he didn't arrest anybody he didn't handcuff anybody he didn't do any of those sorts of things but he's certainly how can you say that was an improper charge when he was in his car speeding along at ninety miles an hour passing red lights in providing assistance which is which is another aspect of the i don't even voice you standing at the podium thank you thank you your honor may it please the court first issue i would like to touch on is the fact that even taking into account the possibility ication one under charge two has not been challenged and is supported by substantial evidence and independently substantiate that charge that's the three charges that the administrative judge in the board found to be upheld have not been challenge before this court and those three charges support the penalty of removal that is the one you're referring to requiring the officer to record in the least once an hour and remain assigned the areas that the one that you're saying wasn't specification is the main charge is the charge that really brought about this removal process and the record simply does not support that first of all the charge to itself is the one of the three charges the only one of the three charges that does not contemplate the penalty of charge one charge three both contemplate that penalty even for a first offense and charged with what i believe to be mr misuse a second offense even as a second offense it does not contemplate the department and in the public generally on university grounds these neither neither notice contemplates the p c a violation as this is this is the charge that matters  turning briefly to the compared or question first the deciding official both the proposing official and deciding official did contemplate the the consistency of the penalty with similar conduct and determined that there was no similar conduct that had been canonized to the violations that mr c s did in this one night even if that were not sufficient the administrative judge in this case really reviewed the douglas factors independently and looked at every single one of mr morsi and his purported comparatives and found that they were not in fact comparatives that they did to harmless error at that point when you have the administrative judge in the board reviewing all of the purported comparatives the judge also pointed out the administrative judge that fourteen the knowledge of the deputy who had been there since the eighty's who had indicated that he had never seen violations of the sort and that is a sufficient review of that particular douglas factor and again your honor the administrative judge in this case did then specifically review all of those compared and found them to be not a political here you and again based on the review of the administrative judge the purported comparatives that he is trying to tension trying to show disparate treatment in contrast to these cases are not similar to his at all as that the administrative judge indicated i don't believe in any of them was somebody charged with three different violations in one night and  like mr miss c s did you know only i believe one of the cases was public safety and issue and in that case it was an individual who caused a car accident and that individual ended up resigning prior to any decision on his removal notice in this case mr c s put both the public and public property as well as government property in danger particularly by his actions involving speeding without his lights on well in excess of the posted speed limits not clearing stop signs through an area that has been reported to have many animals crossing the road that pedestrians crossing the road i believe is the chief of police pointed out he was following or attempting to follow a law enforcement beautiful that had its lights on when that happens when you have that vehicle down the street with lights cars get out of the way once that vehicle is passed they assume it is safe to get back on the street if there is another vehicle behind that vehicle without its lights on going ninety miles an hour he is seriously endangering other motorists who may be getting back onto the road the basic point here your honor is that the severity of the violations that did take place that are uncontested in this case that took place over a period of nearly two hours demonstrated again and again and in conjunction with mr c s his prior disregard for written regulations for oral orders  caused his superiors to lose faith in his ability to make sound judgments to be a police officer in charge of public safety