says you know what i think my my my staff did all of that and didn't do enough to enforce the initial conditions of the robbery of the suspension of the license and therefore i'm going to do and in regulating the license that it issues the united states supreme court said give me the ca only what a regulatory agency can do and certainly it's a it's certainly didn't involve the reinstatement of a license the other that there may be a different situation if if if the state is seeking to take away a license in the somebody hasn't been practicing dentistry for six seven years require him to take educational courses we did that we agreed to that that was part of the administrative law judge just finding in a part of the dental board spending that they increased it here but they also and so that's my thank you we'll give you a couple of  followed we don't know from the record what why the dental board took more than the sixty days it was supposed to take it ended up taking about nine months but the issue has been framed as a due process violation and just because you violate a timeframe day time frame and the person was making the same argument that there was a due process violation this court said no it's not necessarily to past life so our position is that simply because the  how can they expect the dentist oh well actually the dental board ruled in his favor which is why i think he did make an issue of it once it went past the sixty days he was waiting to see if they were on his favor and then decide whether to make an issue of it and it was only after issues where he would not respond to phone calls where patients were suffering so in addition to this problem he would take money upfront not you could work and i give a refund either so it was a consent order entry which he agreed to which was out those allegations and as part of their consent order he promised that he would get refunds back to people if he didn't do the work that he would complete one hundred additional hours of continuing education because he had these problems with the malpractise and incompetence which he never took any of those hours and then also that he would pay a fine to the department she paid part of but not all and then within six months signed a consent or he was doing the same thing with patients of not doing the work and then their money back so his licen was indefinitely suspended and then after a few years came back and fishing for restoration but during those years he was selling advertising but he didn't take any of those courses and until today he's never said that he couldn't afford to take them so that's a forfeit all manifest way the evidence in his favor when you're seeking restoration you have to show by a preponderance of the evidence that you're fit for restoration that you can be trusted to do this work with these vulnerable patients and he presented no witnesses other than himself presented no documentary evidence and it's and his position was basically i think i should get my license back you know i'll be look we chop you know he was very basic in this questioning about the financial matters he claimed to not know so what how do you explain the jays decision and then the take him back basically a second chance to live up to the conditions that he did live up to the first one i think the director wants to see him do something first i mean during those four years he did nothing and so we're just going to take him at his word that help to if we give him the license that we want to see something done you know before it would be other thing is that if you look at that section thirty one of the dental practice there it doesn't say anything about rehabilitation it just says a pound written recommendation of the board if you get your license there we got it then it says the dental practice second section twenty five have a short recess so we can switch p