you made to argue that one was that you had done enough to rebut the presumption of non receipt by making a reasonable showing so your declarations and the other one was that you want to be entitled to equitable tolling those you really with respect to put it will tolling diligence may be required so that it that's but i'm not sure with respect to just showing the receipt that there's any requirement of showing deal which is so focused with me for a nd on the st part let's assume that your affidavits declarations your your clients and your secretaries  statute the regs says that's enough to rebut the presumption but then the burden turns the case is saying that anurag says the burden turns on the government to demonstrate reseed so isn't the most could do say that you've done enough to rebut the presumption and now the government gets to do whatever it wants to do i don't know how it does it as a separate issue touche to demonstrate to you that you received it the the doesn't say we therefore presume receipt it just says that's enough to present rebut the presumption of don receipt so one of the things i'm trying to figure out in this case is what follows from the fact that you may have the question is what is the district court have to do before it arrives at that conclusion assuming that your affidavits declarations i'm sorry i'm humbled enough to remember when we didn't file declarations just  in the in the district court action they filed a a declaration by an employee of social security claims that she reviewed the file and then an employee sent out  claimant's control of the prevented her receipt of this document so i think it would be unjust result if they did if the claim was not allowed to go forward because she didn't find out about it prior to discovery of on a lack of knowledge and stuff's not really what we're focused on what are the government's position is focused on here we're focused on the fact that the affidavits can be enough by themselves and not what we're going to let me ask you about that position if you're not arguing th procedure they never got it i never got it and my legal secretary is the person who is responsible when stuff comes in to put it in the docket and she says she never got it and is ash says essentially i looked in the mail every day but i never got it how how was one to prove non receipt i understand it would just miss ash saying i don't remember ever getting it that might not be enough but if you want to show me on receipt how can you do better than that evidence of certain mailing irregularities or issues like yeah we all know that we all know from our personal experience that occasionally the postal service is terrific but occasionally a letter is properly addressed and doesn't arrive at the place where it was sent and so if if you're in one of those circumstances how do you prove that receipt other than by affidavits from all the people who would have received a letter saying i didn't receive it so so and again for talking about a case like that there's i think this points i want to me yeah sure your honor there's two points i want to make up of the st point is we're focused and i think appropriately so on what else could the claimant have done because there is an understandable concern about is the claim of just get shut out of courts in this in this in these circumstances there is no other evidence you can introduce and the answer is no she doesn't automatically get shot out of court the social security act provides the opportunity to request an extension of time because it says such further time is the commissioner may allow and the claimant could actually ask the social security administration to extend the time has regulations go to your mailbox every day and you don't get it and what you're saying is under that circumstance nothing you say is reasonable enough to rebut the presumption so so your honor i i think what i'll say is that just a claimant statement in that case isn't going to be enough i don't believe that we don't just have that's why i said we have more here we have a professional lawyer who says i have a system where this was supposed to been sent to me and we have a system for figuring out what official notices are sent to us so we can keep track of them you know and it allies the system in the end we've checked with everybody in the system and they've never got it and i never got it either so it's less likely that we  could've offered but are in the position that we're taking over the rule we're advocating for is one where the court we're the court is going to differentiate between sort of those situations where the claimant might be able to you know a leader postmark or something like that in a claim of a claim or of a case where claimant doesn't have that offer because sometimes you could show a lead receipt with something tangible sometimes you won't be able to sometimes you could show non receiving something tangible like an address discrepancy but say that that for the appeals counsel to take you know mister schieffer noted nineteen months or something about an in the earlier case and i think that that is it is the case that i have seen them take that long  sometimes do take these lives decided in a couple of months they sometimes decided who could be close to two years i think what's one thing that's relevant here and that's interesting here to the point of diligence because if that's one of the things we go back to what we're talking about how long is that ms ashe house a state of that she contacted her attorney i think it was every three months and there hasn't been any showing from the of the attorney and of why when he was contacted multiple times i guess six or seven times before he finally called the appeals council why why he didn't side to check in to see well maybe what's what's going on there what's you know the situation there so i think that's that's good and if that's why ask the question of it's not unusual or correctly i think i think that's correct your honor and that's why there is the discretion given to the agency to grant extensions of a claimant wants to response time and didn't do that here what she did instead was to file a complaint without even acknowledging the about the record what was the record what was the evidence that it was actually said so that's that comes in the declaration from the appeals  it is as i recall what the declaration was i looked in the file and found the letter and it would have been the normal process to send it is that a fair summary of what it said no your honor i'm looking at page representative so yeah but but that's what i'm trying to figure out how the person did that did the person who made that declaration say that they had personal knowledge that it was sent or did they just look at the file which we've i've looked at doesn't have file doesn't have anything in it that says i serve this on somebody and such and such a day and conclude that it was sent that's what i'm trying to figure out right so so she states that the information in the file shows that it was  i we've seen the file i think it was defined as part of the record and i don't know that it shows anything other than that the letter is in there that's what i'm trying to figure out if there's any direct evidence that it was sent so so the i mean the information that's an excerpt from record that's certainly on the entire electronic file a claim and there's there's definitely more that's available of counsel so is there is there a part of the file that shows the record that it was sent well i think i think that goes back i i don't i don't know as i stand here today or i guess technically sit here today with these limitations we have but but it's whether there is something in the file that identifies that but i think your op judgment made earlier that if the court concludes that the claimant has made that has made a reasonable showing with the affidavits which of course our position is that's not enough by itself but if they had then the proper remedy would be to send it back t district court for further proceedings to sit to allow that development see ok that's really that's really all i was asking a question i just was trying to figure out whether there was some other evidence that the district court might have seen that  can't find in this record that it was and i take it your answer is it's there may be more but it wasn't in front of the district court that's that's that's correct your honor i see that i'm past my time i wonder if i can indulge in for a very brief wrap up if you can that as a reasonable going it should agree with what the various other courts have said that of consider this issue and should affirm the district court's dismissal thank you very much thank you such a thing you've got a little time ok ms ashe don't overcome this presumption that arises when the employee of social security says they looked at the file as someone sent it out and that's that's an equitable