and according to the only challenge of record proof has never once been disciplined by the director of insurance for any misconduct that ever occurred in connection with the criminal proce course is an order which simply says i decide to revoke your license if you want to have a trial you care and we exercise our rights to have the trial we had that trial during the course of the trial question history thing on the record sort of wrap this right in the record about what occurred between the time you know there's a gap between the time that mr lim signed this sub form and it was submitted to the director williams signed the reward application for a license for example on january first but that was transmitted world within the bank he sounded with my letter to the director two weeks later criminal lawyer testified on his behalf in this case the phone somebody else testify on his behalf with regard to the nature of his business and when he does the hearing officer file that an opinion best proceeding would be behind closed doors it is not possible that he ever could have said that in that regard i have cited and your honour's gave me permission to say after our fine a brief was in  be shocking for me and i hope shocking for the panel because the last page of the decision said that it's remained good for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision it would be met with could regard to insurance producer and eyes and sees people spend money they spend money from insurance companies so they spend money from their insurance companies when the customers really want it was even didn't think of it earlier but i think the interesting thing about and i'm going to conclude with these remarks the interesting things about scott to see him was he got two years back up it was two years from the no other questions i'll sit down and thank you very much for your time i know why it's a short  felony which gives the director of insurance the discretion as to choose what the correct punishment should be for the crime that was committed here not the only supreme court as in the scott case also there was a failure to report which is also independent grounds for finding that their insurance produces license in this case should have been revoked the director abused his discretion in initially deciding on the punishment because as judge years later respectfully your honor it was a fraudulent income tax returns i understand it was what it was the point is valid but my point is that is or is are any indication that the hearing officer and the director he didn't judge concern with regard to the fact that subsection b wasn't it really considered the whitewash the indication is only that we received the order and it was processed properly it was read it was understood we've never made the are you so th this case the decision of the director especially after we have a court order telling us what to do should be it should be presumed that the director complied with that and there are cases that say the presumption is that government officials in good faith comply with the law there's a lot of work that went into both of these decisions and a lot of work that went into the director's decision before that the factors that the director is to consider were consider all eight or nine of them a through age that was one of the factors and that one actually goes in favor of mr lamb we can see that but the fact is the don't go in favor of mr landis that this was a very serious crime evolved over seventy thousand dollars it wasn't filing false return it was fi with regard to the suggestion that the order wasn't final when it was entered that was rejected by the by the trial court specifically there's nothing to suggest that the changing that the modification of the order to correct the sentence affected the validity of the order it was the court is left with a cloudy impression of the evidence on section five hundred dash ninety five that has to do with the disclosure that's what he says the court is left with a cloudy impression of the evidence and then he sends the case is he asking the director to do with regard to the fact that that there's a cloudy impression from the right to consider whether or not contrary to what it seemed at the time when he was looking at the whether mr lamb had disclosed prior to the thirty day time window because it looked like there's a dock in the record that's within the thirty days that seems to be showing to his attorney but maybe the director has overlooked something maybe mr lamb has overlooked something but when we went back and looked over the records and considered that argument the hearing officer said no there's nothing here is what we have here is a document that goes f attorney disclosing the conviction which is kind of silly since his attorney had working on the case i assume for the seven years that have been pending and then it never showed up at our offices so it was never delivered to the director in the in the statute requires that it be delivered to the director with all the supporting documents to taken place so that's a different reason an independent reason and a revocation is a statutory discretionary remedy that the director has this case has been kicked around for a very long time there's no accident here this was a decision that was made by the director  you that's not how we work in this country i violation and respectfully that needs to be reversed if you have no other questions thank you very much for your time thank god you guys are given a seat very interesting case very well briefed very well presented it will take an under