mr. arvin's bills, and he was not given a receipt. we do not even know if she made it back with them. in the file is a notes document is intended to go out and get the bill. -- is a note document. there is no record. there is no list. there is no audit report. she was terminated after only two months on the job. we do not know what happened to any bill that went into the commission offices or if they made it to the mta after they and the commission merged korea in february 2010, rummaging through files or boxes -- the commission merged. in said uri 2010, rummaging through files or boxes -- in february 2010, rummaging through commission files or boxes, they found some items that belonged to mr. arvin. it is a complete break in the chain of custody with sfmta. they are in violation of their own policies. it is a fundamental fairness to make a record if you take something from someone, and it is fundamentally unfair if you do not and then say it was on somebody else's watch. this should not depend

mr. arvin's history, his total history, including that he is currently totally compliant. it takes away not only his immediate ability to support his family but down the road possible retirement benefit and hundreds of thousands of dollars. finally, there is an inherent conflict of evidence, because the mta, its own employees sat in judgment and stand to directly benefit if mr. arvin loses. a preponderance of the evidence means that the mta has to put forward reliable evidence which is unopposed to establish that there was a violation justifying this penalty, and it has a problem here, and it knows it because of its past rule to fix it. something adopted last year reads as follows. "in the event that sfmta requires original records, they will provide a receipt for any original document that is removed from the permit holders premises or that are otherwise provided -- from the permit holder's promises -- premise s." that is not what happened here. it is undisputed that a recently hired a probati

mr. arvin. it is a complete break in the chain of custody with sfmta. they are in violation of their own policies. it is a fundamental fairness to make a record if you take something from someone, and it is fundamentally unfair if you do not and then say it was on somebody else's watch. this should not depend upon the timing of a much needed change in the law, which now protects the way evidence is protected. -- collected. the actual violation is that the medallion holder ceased to be a full time driver. there is a conflict in evidence as to how much mr. arvin drove. they are the dispatchers that heard him on a weekend night come out driving, -- night, out driving, and inflation -- and the implementation of a penalty -- that used to be mandatory and is now a discretionary is an indication it should only be imposed in the most egregious of circumstances. that is not what you have here. given the conflicts in the evidence, the most he should have been facing was a moderate suspension, even if the

mr. arvin's history, his total history, including that he is currently totally compliant. it takes away not only his immediate ability to support his family but down the road possible retirement benefit and hundreds of thousands of dollars. finally, there is an inherent conflict of evidence, because the mta, its own employees sat in judgment and stand to directly benefit if mr. arvin loses. a preponderance of the evidence means that the mta has to put forward reliable evidence which is unopposed to establish that there was a violation justifying this penalty, and it has a problem here,