the reason we're here today is because siegel is due process rights were violated it's understated that procedural due process under all circumstances consists of notice and an opportunity to be h cements that is due process rights rights were violated when he did not receive notice of the may second two thousand hearing two thousand and seven hearing before it was conducted that he didn't have notice of his attorneys withdrawal before the hearing was conducted and that he didn't have write we don't disagree with that however we think that in these circumstances it's important to look at the facts of this case on we referenced the milinkevich case with that which is court decided a few years ago incarcerated person had no actual notice of a hearing even though he was represented by counsel and he had no means of attending the hearing just like siegel here and in that case the the it was deemed that the party someone where he was represented through counsel through the entire proceeding from june two thousand and four when this began through just two three weeks before the hearing was actually conducted almost three years later he guess up to that point as he's represented by counsel you know the case was continually entered in i guess is entered and continued while there is a case pending against him in the united states district court they conducted discovery in this case and then his attorney withdraws and then three weeks later the hearing officer goes ahead and conducts a hearing in siegel's absence while the department knows that he's in prison they he knows that he's unable to leave pr being the notice and one being the opportunity to be heard i think the records clear that even if siegel's attorney had notice there's nothing to show that siegel actually had actual notice himself of the hearing with to find that that notice was imputed to siegel even though he wasn't without counsel it's we have to remember that he didn't have counsel to go ahead and appear for him at the hearing withdrawal was granted that the hearing went forward i called personally the hearing officer explain the circumstances and i said we'd like to reopen the hearing we've been retained as substitute counsel we've got evidence we like to present we want to you know contest whatever evidence was presented at that time we didn't know what had happened the jury not to serve represented to me that he could not easily was in the process of making his findings of fact conclusions of law which he was going to give to the director and the director would then enter his final order well this is a rather i did write to confirm the telephone conversation however i guess the only bit of evidence that would show what you're looking for is my affidavit that was attached a motion to reopen the hearing which based on th prejudiced but that c was prejudiced by not being able to be represented at the hearing through counsel and that all this time had lapsed when it doesn't make sense so you are making an abuse of discretion argument although you  about that explain the conversation i had than a statement i think somewhere that he received notice sometime after i'm sure that's correct however and i know that's something that the department has raised on this appeal but that's an issue that was never raised before where i mean i filed my affidavit explaining which is where that information came from that he didn't receive it until after the hearing was conducted and throughout the entire process by well with the circuit court that issue was never raised it was raised for the first time now that you know my affidavit in comply with rule one ninety one and that siegel never presented his own affidavit to the court to explain that so i think it's a little unfair this juncture to make that argument but but it is what it is segal did not file an affidavit himself that specifically states i received the notice after the hearing date so i think the important thing here to look at is not only the notice but that the too many to be heard because the administrative review act provides that a party has a right to be represented by a coun and when peterson's motion which is siegel's previous attorney when it was known as motion which i was granted zero that have substitute counsel that day to represent him he was unable to leave prison to attend the hearing just to even know the the motion was going to be granted or not and he was unable to leave at any other time including for the may second hearing trying to retain substitute counsel and he's only allowed to make so many phone calls for so many minutes per month he has to work with family members and friends to try to find someone out here in chicago i mean he's up in wisconsin to try to find someone who can represent him in a matter here as substitute counsel and you know as soon as we got the call an edge or is from my firm decided that we would take the case we want i immediately called to see how we could go about becoming it wasn't until after he got the letter from the hearing officer basically saying you know your lawyers withdraw on the theory it's going forward on may second it was sometime after that in i don't know the record doesn't reveal the and i don't know from mr siegel i know that he was represented to me and i portrayed to this court and the circuit court that in that apartment that he did not receive the notice until after the hearing was conducted i don't know what point and i don't know if he knows because they noticed the letter that the hearing officer sent to him although it's dated april twelfth there's no certification of either being mailed that day presumably it could have been  it wasn't mailed by register certified mail so there's no way of tracking when i actually went into the prison and then went through all the processes there to get to siegel and in also i have no idea between when he actually learned of it and when he contacted my firm i don't know if he actually contacted anyone else before he contacted us to see if we would represent him in this matter i just know that he when he did contact us we move this quickly as we could do and then i believe it was two days later i filed the appearance when i figured out where i had to send it how to do it and b and we spoke with him i didn't time he he did not he didn't or did not  so i think the most important points here are that we don't think that steve was properly defaulted at that hearing because he wasn't afford it is due process rights of notice and especially an opportunity to be h made clear and we've really pushed hard since this time that had we been able to go in as a substitute counsel we would have presented our own evidence siegel has he had presented evidence of that apartment throughout the proceedings before the case actually went to the hearing that we would have used and raised to rebut what the department put on the only reason that the judgment was entered against him was that that he didn't show up i mean  the final happened i know but the fine that was initially assessed against him was one point four million dollars in excess of what the department could even charge him anyway had they on that the default was proper and that i  the violations that are legend or were of revocation are based on a series of audits and work papers stuff like that to which the authors are not identified they weren't called at the hearing they merely had a man from the department come and testify show but those circumstances could be different where you know someone may have deliberately not shown up or tried to avoid this here so it was represented by counsel the entire period of time except for the three weeks before the hearing was conducted and immediately after was conducted he we had ever to joyce file the substitution that finally the only point i'd like to make is that you know there during this time when this proceeding was going on there was also the proceeding in the northern district which kind of had similar related issues to this case and we just asked that this court and we as a circuit court as well to take judicial notice of those findings because the findings that were reached there don't support the findings that could have been reached in this order of revocation even if except it is true and those include that there was no economic loss to sequels clients that there was no fraudulent intent that siegel had no victims and that every client received their insurance and every insurance insurer was receive their payment on time for forty years this case that notice to an attorney is imputed to a client that's that's the critical legal foundation of where we are and the critical fact is that the department gave sufficient notice to mr siegel through his attorney mr peterson on february twenty sixth two thousand and seven this may second two thousand and seven hearing about eight weeks out the fact that mr peterson subsequently with  through is of no constitutional significance doesn't change it doesn't change a thing because notice to the attorney is notice to the client as this court has held in cases such as williams and tell it and smith and we case that counsel say it's which i believe is called the rank of there is a thirty year old case that doesn't stand the test of time because it is i believe has been overruled although not officially by the u s supreme force decision dusenberry which involves imprisons inmate who did or didn't receive sufficient notice from the i about for future proceedings and there is no carve out to your question of justice kind of am about particular facts or circumstances that would be an exception an exception of course this was the and that is this idea that opportunity the opportunity to be heard the second prong of to process notice an opportunity to be heard and that opportunity means actually being heard  does they would like to read out of opportunity to view her the concept of opportunity and just require actually showing up with lawyer or per se and be heard if that was the case no case could ever be decided on to fall and as your honor pointed out there are consequences to default and if you read out opportunity for opportunity to be heard it would mean as well for course that actual receipt of notice is required for due process to be satisfied that that is not the case either all that the agency needs to do is take reasonable steps under the circumstances to apprise the affect party of the pending hearing it's it's the touchstone is notice it's notice that facilitates the opportunity to be heard whether you were there yourself of that opportunity that's an entirely different question  looked again last night after complaint for administrative review and the particular decision that's reopened is i i believe not identified and as you heard a moment ago they have not raised that issue on appeal it's therefore abandoned what this question is about in terms of wayne the administrative burden versus someone's right to be heard and you know which one how to how do you balance that well there's no demand and there's a case that  why he wasn't entitled to the day because he default there are consequences from for the fault is tantamount to the mission of liability and once there is such an admission of liability as you pointed out just as kind of him then the penalty  vision comes into play and i just want to back up and correct of something that we've been discussing the conversation that counsel had with all the correspondence was not with the director it was with the hearing officer and the hearing officer of responsibility is to make a recommendation within a time certain to the director who has the final authority to issue the administrative decision there's no provision under the ministry of proceedings that allows a party to press the pause button and put on hold watch be charges to the hearing officer the proper procedural remedy which they foll to wait until a final decision was entered at that point ask for a rehearing and i'm sure there are cases that we could find were hearings have been reopen because it was because they  meritorious and the hearing takes place the director in his discretion in november denied that request because they hadn't made a sufficient finding showing that there was a problem circuit court can after the fact tell the court the court of appeals what a wonderful convincing persuasive throw evidence shake case that they're going to put on that's not the stand what's going to happen afterwards post h what could have happened we're not here as and counsel has stated her priest she's not here to argue about the merits of the case cases about notice which was sufficient and sa three separate notifications to the prisoner at his former address at his mother's address and at the prison where he was house they sent it by certified mail and the prisoner  claims that he never has to have sufficient notice of the first which are proceeding went up through the six circuits united states supreme court which held that all that's required under due process is reasonable notification under the discretion issues it's very rare that they'll be a black and white wine i mean it's all it's it's all a matter of the totality of circumstances and weighing in the us there so my might my point is didn't receive peterson with wrong was it here did he not know about that the hearing was scheduled did he or didn't he get the notification sent on april twelfth to him that peterson had withdrawn did his lawyer who had was no that was the problem with notification and i think we could infer from that that the affidavit that was submitted which was second hand information didn't show that there was any problem with notification  actually whether the affidavits are good or not good or of evidentiary weight is irrelevant for due process purposes all that matters is what the sender did reducing barry jones versus flowers this court's decision w three he he certainly could have i don't know how many phone calls he got today but he could have made one for the division and said i just got this can you hold here he could have filed a substitute appearance say i'm i'm pro se i'd like to move the bureau of prisons to allow me to come out to represent myself to do any of these things and he's sitting in prison your honor just like the party in the dusenberry case and the united states supreme court held in that case that there is no different treatment for prisoners due process doesn't it so we would we would ask that you affirm the decision of the department insurance license had lapsed this was a revocation hearing about a license that he had voluntarily surrendered through non renewal so the fact that they had to push through without continuing the hearing i think was a great prejudice to siegel and i cited a few cases in my briefs that explained that although the ministry of body might have goals of achieving a prompt and economical determination on the merits when the facts justify just like they did in this case the hearing should be continued and i say they had six brothers kings tried supermarket inc first apartment of revenue when the court held that when administrative body must choose between justice and speed it must pick the side of justice and i think attorney's withdrawal being granted i know counsel pointed out to my belief that page eleven what it says siegel who was unable to appear for the presentation of peterson's motion to withdraw the fact that that sentence may is just a fact that he he couldn't be there whether he had noticed that his attorney intended to withdraw or not it doesn't matter he could not be there to learn what happened and he didn't learn as we've explained and as the record shows until after the hearing was  conducted you know it's proper for an attorney to withdraw whenever they can get leave of court to do so but the illinois supreme court rules provide that a party should be able to retain substitute consolation get that opportunity and we're just yeah it is the essence of our claim but at the same time being within your reach because that's just wrong a starting point you spend most of your time here today talking about that but it's not in your written with period and my understanding of th before this court well i apologize for that but i think in the end of the day you know we siegel as any other party is required he's supposed to get his due process still good law in illinois and i think it's very instructive in this case i mean in that using days about whether someone you know whether it focuses like what he said on what the department did did they follow what they're supposed to do when they give