please call the next  assistant attorney general and i represent the defendants happily it's ok thank you gentlemen we have another case following years so i'm going to have to enforce the time limits rather strictly you will both have fifteen minutes well yeah if we would have certainly taken that then i don't and that was that was the sole reason that we did we asked for four for that for that to considerate they they absolutely did not consider it so we pay you one prior as well right one prior as a pharmacist some fact pharmacy board members are allowed to ask questions at these hearings at this point in time it would it it was mandatory they'd be there it's natural something that we pay we don't have to do it because they weren't penalty or no results mandated by statutes on this case where the statute that requires the presence of a pharmacy board member is not say and any proceeding that is held without such a member is void those are just statute first violation then it's just held to be directory and when not making for it that that's generally true and i would agree with you but if you go back to the entries versus part where the case they say if there's a property right that's at issue then found them to be directory that mandatory they allowed the case to go forward but what in this particular case you have it the reason for pharmacy board members very important like i said earlier they essentially act as a as a f and i will give it to criminal proceedings was given avery was was presented to that case was before judge eighteen months in a federal penitentiary and he was actually a government employee right so he violated his trust as a person working in a veteran's hospital ceiling prescriptions from our veterans to sell to your god who then sold them suffering yes o not given that option with a hearing and was given an indefinite suspension of to yours i don't know how the partment finds it to be fair equitable or how they even justify it is they what they did was justified proceedings while he was incarcerated i don't know when they did it all i know it's the end result and the end result just seems to be i'm not able to get to i think the problem is having trouble justifying the end result  court mr cooped up never addressed the first two factors and i think he's forfeited any argument based on those all three of those factors have to be shown to warrant a stay of an administrative decision and i think that by  would justify affirming the circuit court but i also think even if the court does take a look at those two factors in addition to the third factor the circuit court should be affirmed i think one important factor is whether the stay would endanger the public and here we have somebody who has twice been disciplined for a very dishonest on an ethical conduct it's true the first discipline was a long time ago but it was for basically selling generic drugs but labeling it as a brand name drugs which is i think a type of fraud it's very deceptive conduct and here we have mr gupta involved in a scheme where as one of the justices pointed out drugs were being stolen from a veterans hospital and then sold out of course at a much lower rate by to our mr mr  and another thing i think we talked about that mr lowery talked about the punishments in this case and i think we've made it clear in our brief why there was some been able to practice pharmacy while he was in the penitentiary was another point but another point would be that mr nuff he'd acknowledge his wrongdoing i think the decision as to mr grouped the hearing admitted knowledge of the scheme when he pleaded guilty so i think there was even some evidence of deception and mr gould just heard when he was testifying at the administrative perceiving he was guilty was he convicted of a felony right now could you pose admit yes i played guilty to a felony but then he sort of tried to back off the plate and say oh well i didn't really know what was going on but i was technically and that's a little disingenuous he knew what was going on mr enough feed in fact was his partner in the pharmacy they were co owners at the pharmacy so and he said in his players very much that he knew fully what was the board should have been or the department should have been doing that i want to make that clear i put i don't think that the penalty i don't think that should invalidate the department's action and i don't think the fact that there's a property right at interest on would i would negate our argument this case as we cite in our brief involved very serious liberty interests they were criminal cases one of them involved a man does or are involved a man who was not being advise not being admonished that he could face deportation so he was being faced with the possibility of  purposes are served by the hearing officer and they had the hearing officer listens to the evidence and writes a report with recommendations to the board and recommends discipline so the hearing officer does fill the role that mr allawi was talking about and the statute really doesn't really specify any role for the board member to play at that hearing court would have to find that it's jurisdictional and we don't think there's a basis to find that it's jurisdictional and another point i would make of course is the pharmacy itself is not the final decision maker  as to the role i think you queried as to the role of the pharmacy board there and pharmacy board member present at the hearing when it really comes down to if if they're not a requirement of a board member to be present what role other than to rubber stamp the findings of a hearing officer who's an employee of the partment that it's the only role they would would have all night why not short circuit that diskette would have the pharmacy board i reject that i believe that the pharmacy think the statute warrants it out they should also be a judge by a pharmacy board that knows the the business knows what pharmacists do with that thank you very much thank you will take this matter under