for procedural due process and it's a relatively low standard but very important standard because it's really all that stands between individuals and the unbridled for centrally unlimited power of the government and here and it's a time tested standard and it really should be treated by this court as is rock solid granite and should not be lowered any further it's already a relatively low standard to provide somebody he learned of the of the situation he actually modified his filing and so that was a response and that and also he became aware of the of the loans but he had actually well you know actual notice of what i mean is interesting so your honor had referred to it several times as a situation that actual notice enough to to to to refile to correct correct and he filed a curative  statement and that to me indicates that he knew of the problem as well but i think again the question of notice is notice of what and in and that's what i'm talking about about it's very important to water down the standard and i think it's in the case law it's a notice of either pending either charges or an action and what that does is when somebody has notice of an action it gives them an opportunity to go and actually go find the charges or the instrument the charging instrument typically going to and that they asked him for information he provided the information and then they said ok well you're guilty and here's the penalty i think that's that's exactly and you're saying that there should have been an intermediate stage where after he submitted the information they said something like well based on what you're saying we think you're guilty of violating this particular intentionally violating this particular regulation what do you have to say about that now he could focus on the nature of the specific charge i agree exactly and  the letter if i can just briefly quote from from letter the letter that the only document that the court below relied on in providing notice and she also indicated that the board had verbal you reached out to this individual's legislative aide to a rd party but even that argument at least in the abstract but what i'm puzzled about is what is it that you would have us tell the board to do if there is suppose there was a violation of the notice requirement here the remedy is we tell them give him formal notice and let him put on his defense to the charge that the idea but now my problem is that what's going to happen next after that is not necessarily an evidentiary hearing right if he's given the up to submit something in writing as to why he's not guilty of this charge that would be sufficient correct and that was hasn't he already had that at the stage of the re argument motion in other words after they and this may not be the the ideal procedure but after and they notified him that he is  guilty in their view and has to pay five hundred dollars he then makes a written submission directed to that charge and they deny it what what's going to happen the next time around he's going to submit the same written course i do i do and it should that it should not be considered because it's different it's much harder to you know when you're going to tribunals and who is when you've been charged with x and saying i'm not guilty of x because as opposed decided he was guilty and now they're going to have to redo it it's the questions just they're already sort of predisposed to find him guilty we're not going to fix that is there a formal difference anywhere and regulations that a motion to reconsider can't be granted unless it's based on new information or based on we overlooked something in the record and that's not really a plenary review or some here there was no record  talk about of the mens rea in the state statute is one man's rate which is very high in the local law adapted to mens rea and that's a little bit lower and the one that was applied here was even lower than that they said to the extent that you knew or should have known i mean what kind of question then comes up  address that or else you can get so with respect matthews in the in the risk of erroneous deprivation here you know we're a party has not provided a set of charges indicating what they're accused of i think that you know then they have to sort of speculate or guess as to what that they define are required under federal procedural due process but where you have a state board that says here's what an action looks like we're going to dock it we're going to give you the rules we're going to you know provide investigative report and where they do none of that and say we're taking oprah's issue is whether or not you violated it and then they say oh by the way you violated it i think we skipped a lot and i think that's a very dangerous precedent to set and it's a very quick question state law clancy that originally i think in the complaint the local are correct i think that it's probably improper law for a number of reasons so for just briefly the general municipal law has a provision that basically permits local municipalities to adapt these ethics  even so it violates its own law and i think where you have such a mess i think it basically is kind of a totality argument that when you add that on top of all these other problems and then you're trying to enforce this law which itself has questions and a checkered history i think that let's set aside these nomenclature gymnastics about actions and proceedings this ethics body's jurisdiction was triggered not when they got the complaint not when it was in the buffalo news which mr morton put in the buffalo news before he filed is a demand the return when mr martin filed an amended return the board's jurisdiction was triggered just as if i sent in an amended return to the i r s i can complain three months later when i get an additional penalty hey i didn't know action by the board given that he triggered his jurisdiction was he afforded the due process that was due not what the law required because well you know him that they did what they did and he's claiming that in follow their forms of the a question at the lower court looked at was was the process provided adequate under the constitution given the pre deprivation issues and given the post deprivation remedy and while the post deprivation remedy both sides agree is not an automatic out here it is if you look at it in terms of a he himself filed a notice and therefore was aware b they went to his office to talk to him and they said among other things if you have questions cause you never did they sent him a letter saying look we're looking into what you sent to us give us some additional information about it they also said and there's a lot made of this in the papers were not me any prejudgments we're not saying at this time whether there exist any violation one would hope that any quas i judicial body would take that role i know this court is not prejudge this case and nor should any pre body do so what they said was we're not saying that you violated the law we're saying we want more information they certainly didn't say that warrant investigating it they certainly weren't saying and he thing else they then issued their decision in january that said based on our investigation based on the what you filed and the evidence that you gave us the complete record we find that that was a violation and therefore assessing a five hundred dollar penalty to prevent a provisional remedies then stop there though that he had a right to reconsideration and in february he filed with assessments of  council or reconsideration he notices again that had he simply asked one of his colleagues the mistake would have been caught he files again the court and the board says no we're going to stick by our determination he files another re consideration and a rd reconsideration and chooses not to file up with this post deprivation remedy let's set aside the issue for a moment of whether there's even been a deprivation get on to the peterson case is never paid five hundred dollars and we've never tried to collect it so i'm not even sure there's been a deprivation here but certainly you have incident after incident after this incident and were told oh well we had a hearing or we had notice but as your honor points out it want to change the record at all it's exactly the record that was in front of them that's my comment on the due process clause portion of this a move onto the state law section related to this unless you have questions he suggests that the state law if it was thrown out would somehow create a procedural due process there are numerous cases that have pointed out by this court that in fact if in fact the state official doesn't follow the state rules that does not rise to a level of a due process violation if it does every time a police officer incorrectly gives the police take it they're going to be here in front of you it sucks it's simply not the case and what he's trying to say is what they found the wrong mens rea that's not true every minute a palatine right let's assume the state law is absolutely void it doesn't matter in terms of the due process because he was given all the process that was due and therefore they comported with the due process claim and what t court below said was we find that there was no violation of due process we find that you were afforded the pre deprivation imposed deprivation remedies required of the content of the constitution therefore there was no state law claim left it was because she had no federal jurisdiction at that point she dismissed the state law claims but she didn't just ignore the issue she looked at our breath and said it doesn't matter because federal courts are not the policeman and police women of local state and state act officials when they're following local and state laws therefore there was no reason to look at that issue my and may i answer any questions from the court otherwise i'll set a precedent today conclude again i think it's important here just to focus on you know the district court analyzed the december letter and its motion to dismiss and analyze it again on summary judgment and i think got it right the st time you know the judge had indicated that she would be hard pressed to find any notice of charges or anything else in there that would put mr no more notice as to what was being claimed against him and there was really no discussion by the court as to why it changed its analysis of that december letter i didn't see anything in in the counties brief and i think the court kind of right st time that this court out of that that analysis thank you thank you very much