character jesse and i will now fishley make my motion i move the admission of eric see jesse who is a member of the bar in good standing of the highest courts of maryland and the district of columbia i have knowledge of his credentials and i'm satisfied that he possesses the necessary qualifications i won't go on because i promised judge jury and judge proceeding making my motion i wouldn't i would just say those are the argument there are three technical issues in this case which require a decision from this court but there is an underlying context that i have to emphasize the underlying certainly sympathetic perhaps in fact so many people come before us too who were also sympathetic that we have to fly below but then the procedure and  court to understand underlying kuntar but that this street issues are going to the first one is a big one the first one mr robinson wins and that is whether his fundamental due process rights across the appeals process from the regional office to the board or veterans appeals to the core of veterans claims were were violated and clearly the evidence shows that they they were violated if the essence of your argument go to the fact that his due process rights were violated because the nineteen he never received into dictation of his nineteen forty six is that the f a a the heart of what you're given here no your honor that's that's certainly that's certainly one of the most important issues is that he has never received a proper adjudication from the  forty six readings that but also when this case went this case went back to the court for veterans claims in two thousand and then that's where he obtained new counsel does the process of hughes started in two thousand and five and from two thousand and five to today he has never had a surgery they found a rope he don't i think they understand that i guess i'm having difficulty i mean there's a there seems to be some confusion in the record and to your credit i think you stepped up and grabbed a and kind of acknowledge that there was some problem yes well if that's true i mean the government's main argument i think on the forty six claim is that you didn't perfect your appeal you didn't file the form not mine or whatever if that's correct that he didn't follow proper procedures and why is the veterans administration or the quarter veterans planes at fault given on his failure and that's the perfect summation of the government's argument do there's two issues and this is one that he didn't perfect his appeal because the appealed that was filed on his behalf twice to the request for reconsideration and so forth no it's the actual formal brief that was filed with with the dva and then the letters and then the sleeve to try to get an understanding from the deviate from the veterans that administration that this may have and is trying to appeal the decision in two thousand and five and you know that it is look for ex there's not from from the least the veterans point looks like when he filed his appeal in two thousand and five he's never it given the delays looks like he's never going perfecting the appeal of the claim that was filed in january of two thousand and five before the oro which was directed at alleged clear and unmistakable error in the one nine hundred forty six decision on perfecting it is is the the motion for reconsideration is because dad made out how the appeal was perfected this and i have to always construed the issue as as referring back to his appeal in two thousand and one and so there's th late total consumption fusion in iraq and the i disagree with in a fever i mean there is some confusion but kind of the fight point for me is that i think maybe some of the confusion was that it doesn't appear to me that with regard to your  because of the nine hundred forty six decision that you ever said anything about that i mean you know the burden is pretty high when establishing a q can claim at all i could find a point tell me if i'm wrong is that you made an assertion that they anything other than a bare assertion and they followed the wrong procedure they looked at the wrong data but no detail on yes there isn't the kind of detail that you are saying you know might appear in the form time yet it's it's been common practice that one can take and use alternate forms and pleadings instead of the form nine and frankly what the strategy and tactics that lawyers use such as me is to get the appeal founded at and protected at the b d a so that there can be an eviden it's not clear from those letters that it was at that time in the nine hundred forty six to claim he was taking issue with because you said the letters directly to the board and in the in the letters he characterize other than the v a for nine can be construed as an appeal before the d d l i ask you to use them to look at the documents that were at the v a on  what would happen would have happened in the world out there particularly the our office in open which is the busiest office in the united states plaintiff takes years and so  i do not believe i know that the issues the legal issues in this courts considered is whether there was rescued because and i i believe that the due process rights of