[00:00:00] Speaker 05:
The next case for argument is 24-1080, Carrington versus DVA.

[00:00:08] Speaker 05:
Are we ready, Mr. Schockenbrock?

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Please proceed.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Alan Sherbrock, on behalf of the petitioner at Council's tables, co-counsel, Amanda Smith.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
The petitioner is a military veteran who suffers from PTSD.

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
attributed to military sexual trauma.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
At the time of the underlying events on appeal, she had a 70% service-connected disability rating.

[00:00:32] Speaker 01:
She worked at the VA

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
for several years.

[00:00:36] Speaker 01:
And in 2017, she was in a difficult position with her supervisor.

[00:00:42] Speaker 05:
Can I just ask you about, you want her to be reinstated, a reversal of the removal?

[00:00:48] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:00:48] Speaker 05:
Do you ask for reinstatement to somewhere else, or to reinstatement suggests that it's the position that she vacated?

[00:00:57] Speaker 05:
So that's what you're seeking.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
I don't believe that it really matters.

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
I think it's a reversal of the underlying order.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
From there, it's really up to whether the position is available to her, whether it's the same position or a different position at a different facility.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
But ultimately, we are asking for reinstatement of the position that she was removed from.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
So she was removed in August 2017.

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
She was a GS9 training specialist, 14 years in civilian service.

[00:01:28] Speaker 01:
And it was all based on one incident that happened in May, a couple months prior.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
In May, on May 10, specifically, she was suffering from PTSD, an induced anxiety attack, based on events that were leading up that happened with her supervisor.

[00:01:43] Speaker 01:
Recognizing that she was going through a crisis, she removed herself from the work environment and placed herself in a private room to call the veteran crisis lion, believing it was a confidential conversation, at which point she disclosed to that telehealth operator that she was having thoughts of harming her supervisor.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
at which point the VCL, telehealth operator, dispatched the VA police.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
And during the same conversation, the VA police overheard the statements that she made to the telehealth operator.

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
From there, the petitioner was escorted out of the room, taken to a psych evaluation, at which point the VA police relayed the statements that they overheard from the petitioner to the intended recipient or the intended victim.

[00:02:29] Speaker 02:
Was she aware that the VA police overheard these statements or were listening?

[00:02:35] Speaker 01:
I think based on the investigator's report, it could be implied based on the investigator saying that she hung up the phone because she didn't want to have two conversations at the same time.

[00:02:47] Speaker 01:
But she wasn't speaking with the VA police during the conversation.

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
They walked into the room, overheard the conversation,

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
And she was aware that they were in the room while she was having the conversation.

[00:02:57] Speaker 05:
It appears that way because based on the... She says, I can't have two conversations at once.

[00:03:03] Speaker 05:
So she hangs up on whoever the hotline person was and repeats it to the police, right?

[00:03:10] Speaker 01:
Respectfully, that's not what she said.

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
That's what's in the investigator's report.

[00:03:14] Speaker 01:
That was what was relayed by the VA investigator that walked into the room.

[00:03:19] Speaker 01:
So it's based on hearsay, which is acceptable.

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
But she didn't actually say that that was based on the investigators statement.

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
Does she just speak then?

[00:03:27] Speaker 01:
Well, the case didn't go to hearing.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
It was done on the briefs.

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
And I don't think the facts are in dispute at all, really.

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
I think what's really in dispute is whether she caused the disruption that came from the comments that were over her.

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
And this is based on the assertion that when she said she wanted to kill her boss, identifying him by name, no one should have told her boss that she made that statement?

[00:03:54] Speaker 01:
Whether or not there was a duty to inform the boss,

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
Again, I don't think it's necessarily relevant.

[00:04:01] Speaker 05:
I do believe that if... When you say disruption, is it the disruption with the police officers or is it the disruption because your boss found out?

[00:04:13] Speaker 01:
I think the agency's position is that disruption was based on the individuals that learned.

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
of the statement and their anxiety and fear that followed.

[00:04:21] Speaker 05:
OK, so back to Judge Andrew's question about they shouldn't have responsibly, I don't know whether they had a duty or not, but didn't the responsible thing to do would be to tell the supervisor that someone had threatened his life?

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
Well, they did tell the supervisor.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
And I think it's more based on the reaction of the supervisor and the reaction of another individual who, for unknown reasons, was also told by the VA police.

[00:04:47] Speaker 05:
which, you know, the statement was not... Do you think there was something abnormal or unnatural or unexpected in the reaction that the supervisor had?

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
I think it is completely natural for someone to react with anxiety and fear, thinking that someone wants to harm them.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
At the same time, the supervisor indicated that he was going to be on leave the next day.

[00:05:12] Speaker 01:
He was on leave for a week.

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
And only after that leave is when he contacted local police to figure out what he can do.

[00:05:20] Speaker 05:
So where does that get you?

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
Well, I think in addition to all of that, there's a lot of context here because for almost a year and a half, two individuals, the petitioner here and the supervisor had a pretty acrimonious relationship.

[00:05:34] Speaker 05:
Well, you say in your brief she has been unfairly harassed and discriminated against for over a year and a half.

[00:05:41] Speaker 05:
We have no record to establish that, right?

[00:05:44] Speaker 05:
You set that up as background facts.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
But don't you think that would be disputed?

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
So it was never decided.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
There was no judgment that, in fact, she was harassed.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
However, the appendix does support that she filed EEO complaints.

[00:05:59] Speaker 01:
She filed a EEO complaint naming this particular supervisor, I believe, a year before the event, where there were several claims naming him, including wanting to be reassigned from him.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
and asking to be accommodated, of which he refused.

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
So the history between the two of them, I think, is relevant, because at the day of, she felt like he was harassing her, that he was unfairly criticizing her work performance.

[00:06:24] Speaker 05:
And that email exchange is in record, correct?

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:06:27] Speaker 05:
So I don't know where it is exactly, but do you want to point me to anything in particular in that exchange that you would find to be harassment or discrimination?

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
Log in, Your Honor.

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
There was no decision made of whether or not she was actually harassed under the law or actually discriminated under the law.

[00:06:46] Speaker 01:
But she felt that way.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
She went through the EEO process.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
She initiated that process, went through remediation, and it resolved.

[00:06:54] Speaker 05:
And so I appreciate what you're saying, but where does that get us at the end?

[00:06:59] Speaker 05:
I mean, you're not excusing.

[00:07:01] Speaker 05:
You're not trying to excuse the statements made.

[00:07:04] Speaker 05:
They should not have been made, right?

[00:07:06] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
I'm not trying to excuse the statements that she admittedly made.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
She admittedly made that statement.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
I think it's more about the context of that statement when it was made.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
She understood she was going through a crisis.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
She is a veteran.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
She's an MST victim.

[00:07:22] Speaker 01:
She took herself out of the environment to avoid the disruption.

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
She did not intend to, and I understand intent is not part of the elements here, but it is part of the penalty analysis of which they still removed her.

[00:07:36] Speaker 01:
All that said, her intent was to not cause disruption.

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
It was to take herself away from that environment.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
And unfortunately, she was removed over it.

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
And I think the agency and the board below, they cite to the Gray case.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
And I think they made it very comparable to the facts here and so far that there is an individual in that case that was having issues with their supervisor that same day.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
There's a disagreement about a hand truck

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
That employee then decided that he was going to go to the medical unit, made statements to two nurses that were pretty egregious, that they also wanted to harm their supervisor.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
But it was worse than that.

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
It was pretty bad.

[00:08:20] Speaker 01:
So the nurses called over a safety plan coordinator and the OSHA representative.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
And those statements were then repeated to those individuals in a completely separate location.

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
So among other charges, it included disruptive conduct here.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
And so ultimately, the board found that case to be comparable because of the repeated nature of the statement.

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
And here, Petitioner essentially was removed for repeating her statements in the presence of the VA police.

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
The reason why those are distinguishable is because the individuals here that felt the anxiety and the fear

[00:08:55] Speaker 01:
or her supervisor, and again, some other individual that we don't know why they were told of the statements.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
Was the other individual the head of HR?

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
No, it was not head of HR.

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
It was an administrative officer.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
I believe it was someone in her supervisory chain.

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
But also, based on her declaration, talked about the EEO complaints that she had.

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
against the actual supervisor that she said she wanted to arm.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
And also talked about the context of the work environment, that there were issues between her and the supervisor.

[00:09:29] Speaker 01:
But I don't believe it was a human resources individual.

[00:09:32] Speaker 05:
But what do you think should have been done?

[00:09:35] Speaker 05:
I mean, nothing.

[00:09:36] Speaker 05:
I mean, this was caused because the police told the supervisor.

[00:09:41] Speaker 05:
In other words, they shouldn't have told the supervisor, so they were responsible for the disruption, not her comments.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
I think what should have happened here is that the petitioner was supposed to get the care that she was entitled to.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
She did go to the psych unit.

[00:09:58] Speaker 01:
She was cleared.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
With regard to the police informing

[00:10:02] Speaker 01:
the supervisor and other individuals, if they felt a duty that was necessary, that's their duty.

[00:10:08] Speaker 01:
But what should not have happened here is that the petitioner should have been removed for doing the right thing.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
and taking herself out of the situation, calling a confidential line.

[00:10:17] Speaker 05:
Oh, I mean, I don't think anybody disputes that under the circumstances here, she did the right thing.

[00:10:23] Speaker 05:
The question is, we're still left with her threats to kill the supervisor, even if she, at the moment, absolutely did the right thing.

[00:10:32] Speaker 05:
I mean, she didn't act on her paddock attack.

[00:10:35] Speaker 05:
And she has a history that supports some things that have happened.

[00:10:40] Speaker 05:
But that doesn't wipe away.

[00:10:44] Speaker 05:
the fact that you threatened her supervisor's life?

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
Again, I think the particular language that was used was not that she was going to, it was that she felt that way.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
She felt she was, she wanted to do that, not that she was going to act on that.

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
In fact, the VA investigation found there was no credible threat, and I understand she was not charged with a threat, and the MET standards don't apply here, but again, that is, I think, relevant.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
that there was no credible threat.

[00:11:12] Speaker 01:
She was never arrested.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
She was not criminally charged.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
The VA itself found it was incredible.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
What should have happened is, again, they investigated internally.

[00:11:23] Speaker 01:
She was taken to a medical unit.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
She was cleared.

[00:11:26] Speaker 01:
She should not have been fired over this.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
But she actually wants reinstatement in the same job where she's having these sorts of thoughts and desires to kill her supervisor.

[00:11:37] Speaker 03:
She doesn't want a different job.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
Well, procedurally, she prevailed on appeal.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
The administrative judge actually reversed the charge.

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
Part of the inner relief was that she was reinstated.

[00:11:53] Speaker 01:
When the agency filed their petition for review, they affirmed and certified that they comply with that inner relief, and she was brought back to that job.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
That's where the record ends here, and I'd rather not go beyond that unless you want me to answer what happened beyond that.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
But she was reinstated.

[00:12:10] Speaker 01:
And five years later, the board reversed because there was no court.

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
So to answer your question, Your Honor, she does want to go back to federal service.

[00:12:19] Speaker 01:
What the agency does with that, whether they place her in the same position, whether those individuals are still there or not, I don't know.

[00:12:27] Speaker 05:
OK, why don't we hear from the other side?

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
Thank you for your time.

[00:12:41] Speaker 04:
Replace the court.

[00:12:43] Speaker 04:
Substantial evidence supports the board's conclusion that the VA approved the charge of disruptive conduct.

[00:12:48] Speaker 05:
What import should we take from the fact that she was reinstated after the AJ opinion?

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
Done.

[00:12:55] Speaker 04:
Because they did it pursuant to the order of the AJ, not voluntarily.

[00:12:59] Speaker 05:
Did she work remotely during that period?

[00:13:01] Speaker 05:
Did he work remotely during that?

[00:13:02] Speaker 05:
That I don't know.

[00:13:04] Speaker 04:
That's not in the record.

[00:13:05] Speaker 05:
Is it not probative or indicative that nothing happened during that five-year period?

[00:13:10] Speaker 05:
Or that's absolutely off limits for us to consider?

[00:13:13] Speaker 04:
I think that's beyond the scope of the record.

[00:13:14] Speaker 04:
And I think it's off limits for the court to consider.

[00:13:17] Speaker 04:
One of the things that was significant about the removal was that there was no evidence.

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
And when the Douglas Factor analysis was done, there was no evidence that this mental impairment had been remedied.

[00:13:29] Speaker 04:
That was a major concern.

[00:13:30] Speaker 04:
The seriousness in this conduct, the major concern was that there's no evidence.

[00:13:36] Speaker 05:
But you're saying that.

[00:13:36] Speaker 05:
I mean, he said, but she was clear that she was not a threat to others or to herself.

[00:13:41] Speaker 05:
But you're saying that isn't.

[00:13:43] Speaker 04:
In addition, the record reflects that this was not out of a clear blue sky.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
As the deciding official noted, the discussions are at page appendix 81.

[00:13:56] Speaker 04:
She'd actually, within the year, received an admonishment for not one, not two, but three incidents of inappropriate conduct towards a coworker and a customer.

[00:14:05] Speaker 04:
So this didn't come out of a clear blue sky.

[00:14:07] Speaker 04:
There was a pattern of problem behavior.

[00:14:10] Speaker 04:
The deciding official also noted

[00:14:12] Speaker 04:
that staff members, this is at page 89, inform me they do not feel safe interacting with her and feel that she has the potential to harm someone in the workplace.

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
For these reasons, they requested not to have to work with her directly.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
Several external customers have also requested not to work directly with Ms.

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
Croft, now Ms.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
Carrington, due to her behaviors.

[00:14:35] Speaker 04:
The VA has a policy of prevention of violence in the workplace.

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
Defining disruptive behavior as behavior by an individual that is intimidating, threatening, dangerous, and that has or could jeopardize the health and safety of the patients, employees, and other individuals at the facility.

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
That's at appendix 150.

[00:14:55] Speaker 04:
So it did serve the needs and the efficiency of the service to remove her under these circumstances.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
As unfortunate as they are, I don't think that anyone is up here not being sympathetic

[00:15:07] Speaker 04:
to a veteran who's experiencing PTSD.

[00:15:10] Speaker 04:
And this event was unfortunate.

[00:15:12] Speaker 04:
But there are others in the federal service other than Ms.

[00:15:16] Speaker 04:
Carrington.

[00:15:17] Speaker 04:
And they are the individuals that the government has a duty to protect under the VA's policy against the policy to prevent violence in the workplace.

[00:15:25] Speaker 04:
That policy makes clear that behavior likely to induce anxiety or fear is absolutely unacceptable in a VA facility.

[00:15:33] Speaker 04:
And that was the unfortunate consequence of this.

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
I want to circle back to the notion.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:15:40] Speaker 00:
Before you do, you said a minute ago there were three prior instances.

[00:15:44] Speaker 00:
Those are what's in Appendix 89, described as discourteous comments, unwanted conversation in a negative tone of voice, questioning

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
a supervisor on an email.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
Those are the three priorities.

[00:16:03] Speaker 04:
But for that to rise to inappropriate conduct and an admonishment, I think, is significant.

[00:16:11] Speaker 04:
And it does mean she has a disciplinary history and that this is a step beyond that.

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
Notwithstanding an admonishment, we now have a homicidal ideation.

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
And that's a significant concern.

[00:16:23] Speaker 04:
I can't imagine anyone really wanting to reinstate someone

[00:16:27] Speaker 04:
to a position when they've expressed this kind of desire, because what if something happens?

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
And apparently, when the VA police notified the supervisor of this statement, the VA police also notified someone else, who I thought was an HR person, but maybe I'm wrong.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
What was that other person's role?

[00:16:50] Speaker 04:
The other person's affidavit at Appendix 221 just identifies him as a coworker.

[00:16:57] Speaker 04:
It does not give a title.

[00:17:00] Speaker 04:
So I don't know.

[00:17:02] Speaker 04:
I mean, I think that the significant concern, of course, is that there is disruption that permeates.

[00:17:11] Speaker 04:
I guess it ripples out from this event.

[00:17:14] Speaker 03:
I mean, the affidavit does say administrative officer for education service.

[00:17:19] Speaker 03:
You said point to 221, right?

[00:17:23] Speaker 04:
Let me take a quick look again.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
I skipped over the title when I read this recently.

[00:17:28] Speaker 04:
221.

[00:17:40] Speaker 04:
Oh, I see.

[00:17:44] Speaker 04:
Administrative Officer for Education Service.

[00:17:46] Speaker 04:
I was Sarafina Croft's coworker.

[00:17:48] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:17:50] Speaker 04:
I want to address the issue, just clear the air about this being something that was overheard.

[00:17:56] Speaker 04:
OK, appendix 105 has her on May 24, 2017, going to the VA police administration building for an interview and admitting the comments to Adalberto Diaz.

[00:18:10] Speaker 04:
There's not a counselor in sight when she does that.

[00:18:12] Speaker 04:
So there's not a notion that these are truly privileged communications and the like.

[00:18:19] Speaker 04:
She was aware that the police were in the room.

[00:18:22] Speaker 04:
We're looking for what substantial evidence in the record shows.

[00:18:26] Speaker 04:
And we have the police account, appendix 98, saying that she advised the teleworker she did not feel comfortable speaking to two different sets of people at the same time.

[00:18:36] Speaker 04:
And we have a declaration by her indicating the VA officers entered the room while she was on the phone.

[00:18:42] Speaker 04:
That's an appendix 207.

[00:18:44] Speaker 04:
So this was not merely overheard.

[00:18:46] Speaker 04:
And she was not removed for seeking help.

[00:18:50] Speaker 04:
She was not removed for statements made in confidence to a counselor.

[00:18:53] Speaker 04:
She was made for the statements

[00:18:55] Speaker 04:
made to the police.

[00:18:56] Speaker 04:
And it is reasonably foreseeable, and indeed a direct consequence, that if in the presence of police you express a desire to harm another individual, that individual's going to find out, some way somehow.

[00:19:10] Speaker 04:
I think that's reasonably foreseeable.

[00:19:13] Speaker 04:
The officer's account of what they witnessed in the room was that, at appendix page 98, she stated multiple times in our presence she wanted to kill him.

[00:19:25] Speaker 04:
That's different from, I feel I want to kill him.

[00:19:28] Speaker 04:
She stated multiple times in her presence that she wanted to kill him.

[00:19:32] Speaker 04:
And in that context, when you have a fulsome Douglas Factor analysis, even when you take into account mitigating factors of a mental impairment, the seriousness of this misconduct and the fact that there is, at the time of the removal, no indication it has been remedied is something that the agency within its discretion

[00:19:54] Speaker 04:
is entitled to conclude warrants of removal here, particularly where the misconduct occurred at work.

[00:19:59] Speaker 04:
And the VA has a policy against violence in the workplace.

[00:20:05] Speaker 05:
Which I assume and hope every agency does.

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
I would hope so.

[00:20:09] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I have plenty of time remaining to answer any questions.

[00:20:12] Speaker 04:
Otherwise, I'm happy to rest on the briefs.

[00:20:14] Speaker 05:
No, thank you.

[00:20:14] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:20:24] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:20:25] Speaker 01:
I'll be very brief.

[00:20:26] Speaker 01:
I do want to go back to the interim order just very briefly.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
It's Appendix 29.

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
This is the administrative judge's initial decision reversing the charge, specifically the interim relief.

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
And it starts a paragraph as part of interim relief.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
The judge ordered the agency to reinstate the appellant here, and then goes on to say,

[00:20:49] Speaker 01:
The appellant shall receive the pay benefits of this position while any petition for review is pending, even if the agency determines that the appellant's return to or presence in the workplace would be unduly disruptive.

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
When the agency filed their petition for review, they brought her back.

[00:21:06] Speaker 01:
So if they believe she was disruptive, why did they bring her back?

[00:21:10] Speaker 01:
Outside of that, the agency relies

[00:21:15] Speaker 01:
largely based on prior misconduct and admonishment or several admonishments, none of which were threatening remarks.

[00:21:22] Speaker 01:
They all had to do with her customer service, her interactions with another coworker, but nothing akin to this.

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
There was no history of this.

[00:21:31] Speaker 01:
The supervisor actually, in his sworn statement, said that there was no history of any threatening remarks made previously, or that he knew of at least.

[00:21:42] Speaker 01:
And then again, the agency relies on kind of the voluntary nature of making this statement to the VA police and references specifically to the May 24th VA interview.

[00:21:55] Speaker 01:
But the appellant here was not charged with that.

[00:21:57] Speaker 01:
The appellant here was charged with the conduct that happened on May 10th and that May 10th conversation.

[00:22:03] Speaker 01:
Any voluntary nature of any statements that were made thereafter is not relevant because that's not what she was charged with.

[00:22:09] Speaker 01:
And if anything, I think it shows that she was complying

[00:22:12] Speaker 01:
with the investigation, with law enforcement, understood her conduct was not appropriate, tried to remedy that conduct, and actually, even initially, tried to take herself out of that situation altogether.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
If there's no further questions, we ask the court to grant permission.