tash and you've reserved three minutes for a bottle brush right ok i see things progressing this morning i may have shot it no ok no certainly go ahead papers and there's also that was found not to have any demerits whatsoever and it resulted in his being fired and banished from the treasury of internal revenue service i'm listening i'm just getting had a spot after a long service right after a long meritorious service somebody but these things happen and it happens i would say all the time but yes it happens it happens to people who have meritorious service have people who have well primarily i wanted to get his job back and so i'm going to basically go to the dispositional aspect but clearly the brief spends a great portion of the pages say that i don't know what happens he doesn't know what happens but there's no evidence to show that he had any connection to it i mean i don't that answers your question i'm a try to get there yes a portion of this is that the punishment meted out was inappropriate under the darkness factors under in effect and so was that your client was alleged to have fabricated some signatures and some documents in order to complete his case in his favor taking a deep breath and your honor and an responding to your question i will tell you a couple years ago i tried a murder case where the husband was accused of killing his wife shooting her putting in the trunk and leave her abandoned some location absolutely no evidence whatsoever not connecting any of those mattress nobody knows but there's no women it's connecting the murder but the whole case was tried on the circumstances in this instance i can't explain why this took place we had the position of these of the three of the three ladies two of whom sense by the fact finding your client had engaged in and lasting completely honest conduct and supplying the information to the the i don't spew that if that were the kid but still first of all it doesn't merit him being fired he'd be fired from the job and secondly that really although it is mentioned no question she mentioned it i think that a lot of her determination came from the fact that there was a three page affidavit that she interpreted in some way that said i did it and that to me was also a means by which i think again you can look at the piece of paper and you've heard of her being the last one of had the benefit of listening to all the o when confronted with the concern that there was a considerable amount of unfinished business had been left behind carroll anywhere either up or down and i was i recall that's a you know you have somebody with a gun standing over your shoulder saying right this sometimes i'm not saying it's coerced but there are other circumstances that come into play the bottom line is even the d day agent said these were my  her statement and in his affidavit she editorialized it correctly in some instances in fact she recorded some of her statements especially of susan wright were totally incorrect but the bottom line is what he acknowledged was during the course of his being a lead c s i he had other jobs and we sponsibility said took him away from the immediate task at hand that he accomplished the question maybe to get a little behind in his regular work and he apologized for pass assume for a moment that it was what your client meant to say as opposed to or to written by someone the explanation change i understood him to be saying subtly no no no that's not my fault somebody else there's no chain of cus acknowledge in this this three page affidavit that he had been derelict in the performance of his duties the apologizes then assume however that he alters his story or changes his position he says no i didn't do this it said and then we have the determination that the offense was committed and we turn to the penalty phase is it in your view proper or then changed his tune so to speak is that something properly in your view considered or not properly considered in assessing a penalty or remorse as a criteria so if you talk about remorse is being a right midnight all admit then you can say well maybe he went back and so yes you have courses yes can i focus now on your exit you're saying under those circumstances yes but you're saying that's not what we have i believe that's not what we have to go here yes because i think that remorse is a criteria listed and so if he says i'm sorry then takes it back i guess you can say well it's not history morsels initially appeared to be however what was first acknowledged never said these were my papers i was shown some documents of all the hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper there was one item that letter my letter and i was speaking in a more legal stick formalistic tone saying that having read the affidavit having spoken to mr vasily he never acknowledged this is be his and we want to make sure he does not take responsibility for that he has no knowledge of because he did not knowledge again in the three page affidavit there was no time where he says this was my work and i'm sorry he was never charged with that he was charged with failing to properly process or secure things not being slow to get his work done because obviously if anybody was going to get is i mean if you have a you know bunch of checks that are supposed to be processed i couldn't tell for sure whether they were check you were going back to the taxpayer like you know my refund or were there were trucks coming in from somebody you know some more money with the money lying around them right well from your premise as you stated it is yes however that's not what happened but if you remember and if you read the statement skin not putting my actual argument in the bank for the government if there's no money lying around somebody's care right and if the and they come in and after somebody finds these checks that your theory is of the government has to prove that the change that the person who used to occupy the knowledge was personally knew the checks were there was not it was their responsibility to process them can there be an entrance drawn that if let's you focus the question to you again and we get to do this so that the answer would have to be yes however if you apply it to the facts in this case first of all you're taking into assumption something that i believe may be an inappropriate assumption to take and secondly you talked about can't these checks which were which we knew where they were at the time the person occupied the care of the chemical some of those checks were three years old now he has been there for how many years if you think for a moment that somebody or something check a nine hundred ninety nine didn't get credited two thousand one hundred buddy buddy else i'd be calling somebody what happened to my credit what happened to my my check what happened to this would have nobody ever called remember not one taxpayer made an inquiry about the work and in fact if you heard this the testimony from the supervisors of jim koski and and suzanne ray and even one when right some of these documents are processed and then there don't we don't know whether these were active papers this could have been if assume for the sake of discussion which i believe is not a good assumption but if you assume they are his they could have been over and done with or not processed nobody knows the problem is you have a circumstance not circumstantial evidence you have the circumstance of something being agency's misconduct charges are supported by substantial evidence because all the unprocessed documents found at mr vacillates work station were dated before mr vasily left for his temporary russian i believe they're all dated between supervisor at the time this robert and mr gray who was another contact were present and that those are documents that the contact representative would work on and also there's testimony from l would work on let's let's assume that there are in the absence of somebody finishing their work there nobody would ever know i guess unless some taxpayer ended up calling ten years down the road one things were messed up that's correct i mean there is only a date stamp when it was  assigned to certain work groups but there was nothing that you know no log of what what a person was working on what at the time but probably most significantly in this case is the fact that when mr bazley was first discussed his position with the treasury inspector general he admitted that he had fallen behind in his work that he was unable to keep up with all the stuff that was assigned to him you're saying that would say hey this is this is what we were discussing a little bit with mr coe tash you're saying that we're now in a situation where remorse is a factor in mr  move to what you were just talking about it was only after that mr bradley was threatened with removal that he submitted a letter that said he deny categorically deny all the any doc that he left any and process documents at his workstation in may two thousand and one when he left for his promotion due do you read the minutes truly raja's to have made a credibility assessment no record here i realize the appellant didn't testify and allegedly broke to supervisors in which he alleged that either certain people were placing documents on his work station without his knowledge or that he at least has one document that says that he cleaned out his workstation and handed his keys to his supervisor and the mystery tragic probably found that these contained indications of false occasion because not only did at the hearing they all testified that they didn't remember signing the documents lack of confidence in mr grassley for failing to process these documents and not telling anyone about it and also the fact that he held a look leadership position and said example for the rest of his team and of course i was doing this is well known what happened with but if that's all that counts then obviously there's no reason for you guys to be here because your the burden is to make sure that there is sufficient evidence that follows the legally right term of substantial evidence and the point  but there is some her let you have to cross and the point is that there has to be some examination of the way should of all the evidence of record not pieces and parts to determine whether that hurdle was met and i submit to you that that  wasn't met because you have again speculation supposition you have innuendo and you have some a little bit of bizarre behavior but if you take that aside and take a look at exactly what was proven  a legally right term of substantial evidence and not the evidence that supports it or you have a hat laying aside your chain of custody or which is somebody else going in tampa you have documents that are assigned to your client and responsibility they're delivered to his office and then they're found not certain that that is exactly correct what you have these documents that may be testimony supports that some work is done by lead c s r but not exclusively by this week c s r they had brought somebody else in from another unit who could do checks they had other people that were doing work similar to jim bazley that's the problem of this case you have so many speculative issues here that there is nothing that says that you can actually funnel down and lay and his feet are on his doorstep what you have is we it's on his desk he's gone on for fifteen months they hold one just party train people there nobody sees the thousands of documents not nor sabrina roberts who's the supervisor nobody sees these things and then all of a sudden mysteriously these are jim va documents and this causes him to get fired i was somebody maybe a jury they didn't they didn't even have probable cause because in their record it talks about the fact they preferred this for criminal charges