even if they're what we except your view that she was right for me can correct me confused about the dates i'm clued in the sort of cetera it seems to me there's at least one document in this case that is crystal clear and that is the show cause order and even for a pro se litigant that's one thing that we can assume everybody can understand and she did respond so notwithstanding the vitality of your arguments with respect to rightful wrongful confusion about the original judge's order etc it's hard for me to get by just that piece and the piece seems to me resolve this case so tell me why i'm wrong i understand that  was given seven days to respond her intent to a file was clear and i think given the confusion of the overall circumstances i'm not sure that she she did not understand what the order to show cause you really don't have to be that's that's a reasonable interpretation especially visit what your interpretation is what the her twenty day clock to dot start running until the conclusion of the thirty six days yes that's that was her understanding because the situation became know wouldn't even a pro se litigant be required to comply with that at least give the agency something back even if it's i don't really know what understand what you want me to tell you about the timeframe because here's why i thought i'm in the correct regularly considers whether determining whether there's a week or a timeline is its rightful case and in this case the board made absolutely no determination of whether there was good cause in light of the facts or any  appeal she leave her appeal with she believes you filed the bill two weeks earlier than the actual deadline and and i also think it's very important to know in this case that the agency never and still has not said that it's been prejudiced by if you can appreciate that she had of the reason for doing what she did so why isn't that sufficient because it's not that it was before the ministry judge ultimately this case is about what was in front of the administrative judge which was nothing as  you pointed out there was an order to show cause issues even after she refiled untimely and she didn't respond to that as well so what was really in front of the administrative judge was an untimely refiled appeal with nothing asking for a waiver explaining unkindness under those circumstances squarely within this course decision and those are the board's allowed to dismiss an appeal can't you go back in time i mean usually if they don't respond to a notice to show cause then the case is absolutely over but there must be allowed the argument then but no circumstances like that exist here the power of the questionnaire essentially said i was confused and didn't say anything else including some of the things that were introduced before this court such as that she was confused by the order to obligated to sell so that should not really be held against the agency or this or the board in this case now her the dishes primary challenge here is of the board aired or it appears the primary challenge the board by not considering the positions are human and reviewed but the board explain its decision by reject in rejecting the titians argument and he did explains decision by saying that the petitioner did not first raise that argument before the administrative judge and the board's long standing rule and even this court's rule is that an argument not raised before the administration and ensure a judge would generally not be considered by the board and so under those circumstances because she failed to say hospitals how are they supposed to that the time has passed the judge dismissed the case because of the failure to respond to the notice to show cause what is the petitioner do them to get that that question  that yes so in extraordinary circumstances such as maybe a heart attack or something else that could not keep up with put before the administrative judge the board will utilize its discretion to hear the argument  and possibly overturn the initial decision but the circumstance or the circumstance of this case really don't lend themselves to such a decision because she explained nothing more than she was confused and as your judge lori pointed out the confusion wasn't really reasonable based on the very clear instructions of the initial decision and further because she didn't respond to any or additional cards which also clearly stated to her that she was on time twenty days from the date of the decision containing instructions the regulations contain or require a date certain but do not specify the format of a date certain and saying two days from now  utilized they both comply with the regulations and to address the confusion of thirty five day for now the there's actually sentence right in the paragraph setting up a deadline that says at thirty five days are part of the hundred twenty days and do not a labor hundred  twenty days so based on that there was no way she should have been computers and infusions just not reasonable got their wrists and instructions to her that contain two dozen lines that were recently they might not be confusing to a lawyer or an attorney but they were confusing to approach a gallon and she thought that they work they were consecutive deadlines not concurrent deadlines consistently says you can you are not allowed to file prior to thirty five days which is that there's no regular sort of required you know there's no regulatory requirement that says you have to put a specific date but there is a regulatory requirement that it has to be a date certain which simply cannot be instructions that lead to potential filing dates which in this case there was there were two reasonable readings of judge me jackson shushing and one was that it was due january sixth and the other was that it w even run yet what's going on in that and unfortunately that's that's the facts of our case and and the with the board has the authority to review any issue on appeal and there is no law or case that the opposing counsel a say that appellants of their right to have their cases heard on appeal because of reasonable procedural mistakes this is not supposed to be a procedural gotcha she deserves her day in court to have her wrongful termination hurt thank you thank you