[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
The last case for argument is 24-1484 Gibson v. Security and Exchange Commission.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Mr. Barton.

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, Peter Breudel, for the appellate.

[00:00:13] Speaker 02:
This is a government personnel case, and it's good to be back in law school again.

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
Yes, it is.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
So you're going to find this exact position in 50 years, you'll see.

[00:00:24] Speaker 02:
So this involves the ruler of the city.

[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
The facts are relatively uncomplicated.

[00:00:31] Speaker 02:
The case has an interesting procedural posture.

[00:00:35] Speaker 02:
It was appealed to the Narrowing Systems Protection Board.

[00:00:39] Speaker 02:
My good friends at the Securities and Exchange Commission, government counsel sitting right there, defended the case, evolved a definite suspension based upon the loss, temporary loss of his security clearance.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
And it was assigned to an administrative judge who put the case on hold to see what would happen to that clarist.

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
The clarist was lost forever.

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
That was the end of the case because the employee would have been fired.

[00:01:05] Speaker 02:
But the employee lucked out.

[00:01:07] Speaker 02:
The clarist came back.

[00:01:09] Speaker 02:
And so the employee, after the period that the court essentially put the case on suspension, was in a position of saying, what do we do now?

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
Well, what they had to do was to determine whether the clearance had been properly suspended.

[00:01:27] Speaker 02:
But the case took an interesting turn, because after the clearance had been returned to the employee,

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
The agency sent out a notice that the employee was going to be reassigned out of a position in the personal security branch of the agency to a management analyst position someplace else.

[00:01:49] Speaker 02:
So essentially she took on a somewhat different career at the SEC.

[00:01:55] Speaker 02:
who determined that she did not have a case with respect to the reassignment had to apply the Brewer case, which this court had decided many years ago.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
And my friends at the SEC used a very interesting procedure.

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
I hadn't seen it done before.

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
I had to compliment them.

[00:02:13] Speaker 02:
for their ingenuity, they moved to dismiss the appeal that placed before the board the question of the reassignment of our plan.

[00:02:20] Speaker 02:
This is interesting, because I thought you had an absolute right to amend the appeal.

[00:02:24] Speaker 02:
But the judge owed directly, and the judge said the appeal was not well-founded and determined that the board would not consider that reassignment.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
That judge, however, did not actually adjudicate the main body of the case, which was the priding of the indebted suspension.

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
Another judge did, but she did not consider the question of reassignment.

[00:02:47] Speaker 02:
So the second judge, Judge Merriman, ruled against disarming the merits.

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
And the case, as the reassignment, had been tossed by the initial administrative judge, Judge Negri.

[00:02:58] Speaker 02:
So we filed a petition for review with the board.

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
After all that, and the board went into suspended animation for about five years, prolonged for quorum, reassembled, and then considered the case.

[00:03:12] Speaker 02:
couldn't decide the case because they only had two members.

[00:03:16] Speaker 02:
The charity decided to recuse herself.

[00:03:18] Speaker 02:
I don't know why.

[00:03:19] Speaker 02:
And that was the end of our little petition for review.

[00:03:21] Speaker 02:
So here we are for a year in Boston to talk about this reassignment and the rationale for the first determination by Judge Negron that he did not have jurisdiction, or he did not have jurisdiction over that reassignment.

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
So if I haven't thoroughly confused you here, the judge's analysis

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
It's very terse.

[00:03:44] Speaker 04:
Well, we're talking about the foundation for your argument is Brewer, right?

[00:03:48] Speaker 04:
Which is a pretty old case of ours.

[00:03:50] Speaker 04:
It was in 1985.

[00:03:52] Speaker 04:
And that broke kind of new ground, right?

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:03:56] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:03:56] Speaker 04:
And that involved a circumstance, as I recall, where there was a demotion and a transfer.

[00:04:03] Speaker 04:
And both of those were bundled in the same case involving the same set of circumstances that were the underpinning for both the demotion and the transfer.

[00:04:14] Speaker 04:
So it almost seems like an efficiency kind of thing.

[00:04:18] Speaker 04:
The board's going to decide one thing.

[00:04:19] Speaker 04:
It might as well do both.

[00:04:20] Speaker 04:
It's the same thing.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
Why is this case not significantly different than Brewer?

[00:04:27] Speaker 02:
It is different.

[00:04:28] Speaker 04:
In other words that it's distinguishable from Brewer because the facts that drove Brewer were the similarity not just of the underlying facts but of the facts that were

[00:04:43] Speaker 04:
driving the decisions.

[00:04:46] Speaker 04:
Whereas here, you've got a unique circumstance, which is a security clearance.

[00:04:52] Speaker 04:
So for her to appeal her security clearance, which she can do to the board, it's very limited.

[00:04:58] Speaker 04:
They can't second-guess the grant or the denial of a security clearance.

[00:05:03] Speaker 04:
They can just

[00:05:04] Speaker 04:
make sure process was followed.

[00:05:06] Speaker 04:
I mean, her main argument, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but her main argument, as I recall, was this position didn't even need a security clearance.

[00:05:16] Speaker 04:
Okay, so the point being

[00:05:19] Speaker 04:
that in order to adjudicate her claim about the security clearance, it did not require an examination or consideration of the facts and circumstances that were the underpinnings of the denial of her security clearance.

[00:05:35] Speaker 04:
And those are the facts that drive the reassignment.

[00:05:39] Speaker 04:
So isn't that enough to say this is significantly and consequentially different than Brewer?

[00:05:45] Speaker 04:
Because there's no real overlap, because this adjudication of the security clearance doesn't derive from the underlying facts, an adjudication of the underlying facts and circumstances.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
Judge, that's a long question, with a long answer.

[00:06:01] Speaker 02:
There's a change of being here.

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
There was an investigation based upon the relationship of the appellate to this fellow drawer.

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
The investigation determined that Ms.

[00:06:12] Speaker 02:
Gibson had incorrectly stated on her SM86, which is essentially a clearance application, some of the factors relating to this relationship.

[00:06:23] Speaker 02:
The result of that was a notice of proposed action, NOPA, as they call it in the trade, to revoke the clearance.

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
The clearance was actually restored.

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
Then, however, the agency takes basically the same factual situation, not precisely the same facts, but very close to the relationship, withdraw from it, say, okay, we're going to put you back to work.

[00:06:48] Speaker 02:
But in a different job, and here's the reason why, and the Chief Operating Officer of the SEC and its personnel officer issued a couple of notices, where they essentially recited the same underlying facts.

[00:07:03] Speaker 02:
So the circumstances are different.

[00:07:08] Speaker 02:
The clearance has very little to do with it at this point.

[00:07:10] Speaker 02:
The clearance drops out because the board has to deal with this reassignment as part of a continuum of a pedal.

[00:07:18] Speaker 02:
And that's where we and our friends at the commission and the administrative of the judge and the board part ways.

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
The very brief decision of this judge, Judge Meagher, and it's at page 23 of the appendix, I mean, it's one paragraph.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
And he says, in contrast with the facts of Brewer, he talks about the security current.

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
And we can't get involved in the security current.

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
And then he decides, therefore, we really can't take a look at the associated penalty of their reassignment.

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
But the loss of the security clearance is not determined in appearance.

[00:07:59] Speaker 02:
It's an adverse action, like so many other adverse actions that you hear on occasion from the court.

[00:08:05] Speaker 02:
It's just one basis for an adverse action.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
The facts are a continuum.

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
With minor exceptions, from the very initiation of the investigation to the determination that Ms.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
Gibson had to be resigned from her position as a security specialist to a management analyst.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
So, with respect, I disagree.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
that the security clearance is determined to, in order, according to this judge, to get involved in the factual clearance, we have to examine the security clearance.

[00:08:37] Speaker 02:
You don't have to worry about the clearance.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
All you have to worry about is the reasons leading to it and the reasons following it, which are exactly the same.

[00:08:45] Speaker 02:
The relationship with Mr. Crawford, if I may put myself clear.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
Why shouldn't we see this case as whether there's a unitary penalty, some sort of unitary overlap, sufficient overlap between the suspension and the reassignment is a factual question.

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
And as the case comes to us, we just have to determine is there substantial evidence to support the idea that they're not unitary.

[00:09:13] Speaker 02:
The problem is the lack of analysis in the case.

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
I mean, the judge could have, and I suggest could have, might have, did not find one of those facts.

[00:09:29] Speaker 02:
I mean, there is no underlying fact determination here.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
So we just don't have a finding.

[00:09:37] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:09:37] Speaker 02:
That's the problem here.

[00:09:39] Speaker 02:
The judge's analysis was so truncated, he didn't say, he didn't say, look, I'm not going to raise half of the security, but if you persist as Gibson, we're going to take a look at, you know, exactly what were the factors

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
that were in the NOFA and compare them to reassign those.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
And maybe there were some differences.

[00:10:00] Speaker 02:
And I think the difference is significant.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
And then it becomes a substantial evidence point.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
That's how it occurs.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
So should we consider remanding

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
for that factual analysis, because I think you're asking us for more than that.

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
You want us to remand it to determine if the reassignment was proper.

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
But maybe we should remand it and let the board decide if it's not meeting the Brewer's standard of a unitary penalty.

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
Well, then they do lack jurisdiction.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
I agree.

[00:10:28] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:10:29] Speaker 02:
I agree.

[00:10:32] Speaker 02:
It would be nice if we could just end this case now with a verdict in favor of Ms.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
Gibson.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
That ain't going to happen.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
This case has been going on for a long time.

[00:10:42] Speaker 04:
Cadet, speaking of that, what's the relief you would get?

[00:10:46] Speaker 04:
Are you seeking any kind of back pay relief, or is it simply reinstatement to the position that she otherwise would have held?

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
It would be neither, Judge.

[00:10:57] Speaker 02:
Proper approach, I think, here is to remand it to the board so they can conduct the fact-finding necessary to apply the efficiency of service standard.

[00:11:08] Speaker 02:
under the statute and then determine.

[00:11:10] Speaker 02:
And they may well determine.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
Wait, you're talking about for them to adjudicate the reassignment by itself, having nothing to do with the security clearance.

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
Well, they can't do that in a vacuum, Your Honor.

[00:11:21] Speaker 02:
They have to examine what the facts are.

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
That didn't happen here.

[00:11:25] Speaker 02:
There has to be a factual analysis.

[00:11:26] Speaker 02:
Now, there is another possibility.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
The MSPB could.

[00:11:32] Speaker 02:
This would even prolong this more.

[00:11:34] Speaker 02:
But they could send it back to our friends at the Securities and Change Commission and say, well, why don't you guys just decide what you'd like to do now, give or due process, a reply rate, and maybe you can work things out.

[00:11:45] Speaker 02:
That's a possibility, but I don't know that it's compelled under the law of the servant.

[00:11:49] Speaker 02:
the board would have to make that determination wrong.

[00:11:52] Speaker 04:
But what is the end, end, end game?

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
If she were to prevail on all of this, what kind of relief happens at this stage of the game?

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
If she were to prevail, and if her claim was to be accepted, and she was to be believed, then the efficiency of the service standard would not be met with respect to a reassignment.

[00:12:12] Speaker 02:
Our friend Ms.

[00:12:13] Speaker 02:
Gibson would return to her position in the personnel security division of the Securities and Exchange Division, assuming it still exists.

[00:12:20] Speaker 04:
I was just going to say that.

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
What if it doesn't exist anymore?

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
I can't answer that.

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
There are so many questions I can't answer.

[00:12:27] Speaker 04:
OK, I appreciate that.

[00:12:28] Speaker 04:
Why don't we save the rest of your rebuttal moments here.

[00:12:30] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:12:44] Speaker 03:
I'd like to say good morning.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
You ought to be around today, please, the court.

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
We agree with my colleague on the other side.

[00:12:51] Speaker 03:
This is a question of board jurisdictions.

[00:12:53] Speaker 03:
This is a Brewer question.

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
And the board, as we know, has jurisdiction over a limited range of personnel actions.

[00:13:02] Speaker 03:
In this case, the board had jurisdiction over the suspension of Ms.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
Gibson's suspension from her position.

[00:13:08] Speaker 03:
And that's not an issue before the court today.

[00:13:10] Speaker 00:
What is your response to opposing counsel's suggestion

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
that we needed to do a remand focused on some additional factual language.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
Do you have a response to that?

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
That would be unnecessary, Your Honor.

[00:13:24] Speaker 03:
To look at the administrative judge's decision, which is at appendix page 23, I want to make sure that we're keeping the three personnel actions that are at issue separate here.

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
The administrative judge says, in contrast with the facts in Brewer, the agency's adverse action in this case was not based on misconduct, but rather on the appellant's disqualification resulting from the suspension of her security clearance.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
The description or the analysis is short a number of words because the reason for Ms.

[00:13:56] Speaker 03:
Gibson's suspension from her position was simple.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
It was a suspension for security clearance, which was a requirement for her to conduct duties of a personnel security specialist.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
If she doesn't have security clearance, she can't be.

[00:14:09] Speaker 04:
So the nature of the board's review of the removal of security clearance is very limited, right?

[00:14:16] Speaker 04:
What would the board's review of that determination be?

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
So yes, that's correct.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
When the board did review Ms.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
Gibson's suspension from her position, which was the appealable action, the board determined the simple test.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
Did her position require security clearance?

[00:14:33] Speaker 03:
Yes, it did.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
Was her clearance revoked or suspended?

[00:14:36] Speaker 03:
Yes, it was.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
Was proper procedure followed?

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
Yes, it was.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
And that was the extent of the board's review.

[00:14:43] Speaker 03:
The issue here is that we're trying to mix the reasons and justifications for the suspension and security clearance itself, not the suspension from the position, with then the action that the agency took months later after a full adjudication of misgivings and security clearance by FEMA, during which additional misstatements and inaccuracies arose.

[00:15:06] Speaker 03:
than at that time the agency determined to reassign Ms.

[00:15:09] Speaker 03:
Gibson to a new position.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
So my colleague noticed that and mentioned that these are not precisely the same facts, that the circumstances are different between these decisions.

[00:15:17] Speaker 03:
That is exactly correct.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
When the agency decided to reassign Ms.

[00:15:21] Speaker 03:
Gibson, following the positive results of her security clearance adjudication, the agency relied not only on the facts of the misstatements on address of 60 before and during employment,

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
but also on misstatements, inaccuracies that arose during the investigation itself.

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
So new facts before the agency went determined that Ms.

[00:15:41] Speaker 03:
Gibson was not suited to maintain the position of personnel security specialist, which would be reassigned.

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
And for that reason, the contrast with the facts in Brewer is very stark.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
That the Brewer, the two personnel actions were in the same document, in the header of the document saying reassignment and reduction in pay.

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
Reassignment and reduction in raise, rather, in the same document at the same time here.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
There was a gap of months, different deciding officials, different documents.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
different sets of facts before the agency at the time that it made the two different decisions.

[00:16:19] Speaker 00:
So is part of your argument regarding whether or not the suspicion and reassignment arise out of different facts related to the SEC providing different reasons when it suspended Ms.

[00:16:31] Speaker 00:
Gibson versus when it had her reassigned?

[00:16:35] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
The question is, what are the, the, the test for Ruer is whether it's the same set of circumstances.

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
And, and you take that to mean what was before the agency at the time it made this decision.

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
And when the agency made the decision to suspend Ms.

[00:16:49] Speaker 03:
Gibson from her position, that, that, that is the appealable action.

[00:16:53] Speaker 03:
the agency said, you don't have a security clearance anymore.

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
That was the facts before the agency.

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
Then later, months later, after the security clearance was restored, the agency had a different set of facts.

[00:17:03] Speaker 03:
Some of the same misconduct from beforehand, but also new misconduct, or I should say inaccuracies, statements that indicated a lack of trustworthiness on Ms.

[00:17:12] Speaker 03:
Gibson's part that arose during the adjudication.

[00:17:15] Speaker 03:
And under that set of circumstances, the agency determined, we don't want you to stay in the same position.

[00:17:21] Speaker 03:
We're going to transfer you with the same pay and the same grade to the management analyst that will be in the position.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
And so as Joe just mentioned earlier, this is a question really of facts.

[00:17:33] Speaker 03:
What are the facts of these two underlying two penalties?

[00:17:36] Speaker 04:
See, I understood the question somewhat differently.

[00:17:39] Speaker 04:
I mean, let's assume hypothetically then that the facts were the same.

[00:17:43] Speaker 04:
That after she got her security clearance back, somebody looked back at the folder and say, hey, I don't want this person in this job.

[00:17:50] Speaker 04:
I'm going to reassign them.

[00:17:52] Speaker 04:
Would Brewer then apply?

[00:17:54] Speaker 04:
Because I thought the government's position was Brewer wouldn't apply, because we're looking at what the board had to adjudicate.

[00:18:01] Speaker 04:
And in adjudicating a security clearance, the board doesn't have to look at the underlying facts.

[00:18:07] Speaker 04:
That has nothing to do with the adjudication before the board.

[00:18:10] Speaker 04:
Whereas it's completely different for reassignment.

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
Yes, that is correct.

[00:18:15] Speaker 03:
multiple reasons why these two actions taken by the agency are not unified.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
And one of them is the difference in the factual basis.

[00:18:23] Speaker 03:
Another is just that these are taken at different times for different reasons.

[00:18:29] Speaker 03:
There's a tendency to muddle, even for myself, to muddle these two suspensions of the suspension of the security clearance and the suspension from her job.

[00:18:39] Speaker 03:
And yes, the suspension from her job has the sole basis of no security clearance.

[00:18:44] Speaker 03:
You cannot do the work of this position.

[00:18:47] Speaker 03:
And that basis has zero overlap with the reasons given later for the reassignment from her position.

[00:18:54] Speaker 03:
So even if the reasons for

[00:18:55] Speaker 03:
reassignment to the new position were some of the same misconduct that supported the suspension of the security clearance in the first place, it's still not the same penalty.

[00:19:05] Speaker 03:
It's still not the same actions that are being challenged.

[00:19:08] Speaker 03:
The suspension from the job was the appealable action that gave the board jurisdiction.

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
The question is, can the board extend that jurisdiction to the reassignment?

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
But you say there was no overlap and that it was a different time frame, different facts.

[00:19:21] Speaker 01:
But does the board make those findings?

[00:19:24] Speaker 01:
Or is that just something you're essentially asking us to find based on this is what the record looks like?

[00:19:31] Speaker 03:
So the board made the decision, again, appendix 23, saying that there is no overlap in the facts here.

[00:19:40] Speaker 03:
The same statement I quoted before, in contrast to Brewer,

[00:19:44] Speaker 03:
The suspension was taken for a simple reason, no security clearance.

[00:19:48] Speaker 03:
Here she's challenging her reassignment.

[00:19:50] Speaker 01:
You're reading a finding of no overlap into that one sentence on 23, right?

[00:19:58] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:19:59] Speaker 03:
I suppose there aren't too many words needed to say.

[00:20:01] Speaker 01:
But at the end of the day, the fact findings that we need to review are just that first full sentence on 823 in contrast to the facts.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
Well, the board in the previous pages doesn't recount the facts of the case and the sequence of events when the agency took the various actions.

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
And that sentence on page 23 is the board's conclusion that there is no overlap between these two sets of justification.

[00:20:27] Speaker 01:
And we should review that finding for substantial evidence.

[00:20:29] Speaker 03:
What does substantial evidence support, then?

[00:20:30] Speaker 03:
Yes, sir.

[00:20:31] Speaker 03:
The board does have the alternative finding after that, even assuming that she could challenge, based on the reasons for the security clearance, the board and the alternative holds that there is a limited scope of review for the security clearance on that ground as well.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
If there are no further questions, we'd ask the court to affirm the S&P's decision.

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
Thank you for allowing me to rebuttal time.

[00:21:14] Speaker 02:
So much emphasis in this case was on the

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
security clearance.

[00:21:19] Speaker 02:
Why?

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
Because it was a security clearance case.

[00:21:23] Speaker 02:
It didn't start out as a unified penalty case.

[00:21:25] Speaker 02:
It became a unified penalty case when, after the clearance was restored, the agency reciting basically the same basis that was recited in the NOPA decided that Ms.

[00:21:40] Speaker 02:
Gibson had to be reassigned.

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
Unfortunately, the administrative judge's analysis is very truncated.

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
Were the actions separated in time?

[00:21:49] Speaker 02:
You bet they were.

[00:21:50] Speaker 02:
Miss Gibson was taken out of the job temporarily because of the clearance problem in approximately December of 2014.

[00:21:59] Speaker 02:
She was put back to the job in October of 2015.

[00:22:03] Speaker 02:
She got no back pay.

[00:22:04] Speaker 02:
These are very serious problems for federal employees because of the lack of back pay.

[00:22:09] Speaker 02:
But then she was essentially taken out of her career path.

[00:22:13] Speaker 02:
Are there minor factual differences?

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
There are a couple statements with respect to why Ms.

[00:22:19] Speaker 02:
Gibson was reassigned that were not contained in the NOVA.

[00:22:24] Speaker 02:
But the golden thread that winks all this is the relationship between Gibson and Drawhorn and the other minor differences in no way diminish the focus of what happened to Ms.

[00:22:38] Speaker 02:
Gibson in line.

[00:22:41] Speaker 02:
That's the best I can do with this case.

[00:22:43] Speaker 02:
Unfortunately, the judges, the administrative judges' analysis is too truncated to make much with one way or the other.

[00:22:51] Speaker 02:
I appreciate the governor's position.

[00:22:52] Speaker 02:
I just think that they're incorrect.

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
I ask that you remand the case to the board when it finally gets reconstituted someday so they can decide the case.

[00:23:02] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:23:02] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
Thank both sides.

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
The case is submitted.