the issue presented is in some respects difficult because over the last few years this court has twice addressed related issues last year this court held that the requirement of this very local existing rule at the time and attorney licensed in any federal district court was qualified to be a member of the bar i was already a member of that bar and had been for twenty years and even if you were inactive and yes the going on in  it was on an original application after becoming a member of the arizona state bar however the rule at the time were not of required that because i was already a member of the bar of two other states us supreme court and so forth but i think the point then we're inquiring on as your membership in the district court in arizona was predicated on your membership in the arizona bars that right technically yes that's correct well then you weren't you were in active and if you're an active and how can you practice in the district court your papers you have yourself elected to not only not seek reinstatement with the arizona bar but you intend to remain active so isn't it by your own  conduct now your own status now that you're you know eligible in other words what relief can we go to well the relief that's being sought is invalidation of the act of requirement the act of status requirement of the rule is invalid on its face because that if the bar if the arizona excuse me the district court rule requires active membership then it's unconstitutional is that your argument the argument i think squarely presented by the papers is th and the reasons are are twofold under fraser vs hebei putting aside the question of the requirement of bar membership in the first place which is an issue that was expressly not decided in frasier versus heavey it was decided by this court it creates the clash between the due process obligation of review prior review of a state's pension hearing and the rules requirement itself and it's explicitly clear in the state of something constitutionally deficient with a rule that says that a membership in a district court bar that's derivative entirely of membership in a state court bar well it's unconstitutional well every case that this court in the us supreme court has ever decided have made it clear that while entrance to a federal court bar begins with membership in some state bar and in this case there were several exit from the federal district court or court of appeals bar has little or nothing to do with the state's suspension without prior notice an opportunity to be heard and an independent review and if there is prior if there is that review then it's perfectly all right if if the review leads to that conclusion is and is the stain of a yes that's true and what is your what is your personal status right now with arizona you're an active i guess i'm technically still suspended member even though the suspension i did a half years ago and what are you asking us to do exactly strike the active status requirement rule one point five a of the district of arizona locals rules courts local rules which will effectively reinstate needle the practice as a member of the bar of the federal district court in arizona that you can't be automatically suspended that is the law has been for a hundred years you can't be automatically suspended based upon a state court suspension and at the same time have a rule that says in order to be continue to be a member of the bar you must says you are suspended you are automatically no longer a member of the federal district court dark there is no question of review there's no reason for review under god bolton's decision why should you conduct a review and what it does what the active status requirement really does just come down to the nuts and bolts of it is it says that with respect to that class of suspensions that happens to be the class that we will most frequently come in contact with namely those that arise from the state court in the state in which we sit we will not give prior notice an opportunity to be heard or any form of independent review we will instead delegate that  the state supreme court and that is that's the flip side of every decision of this court and every decision of the united states supreme court is one classic example where is the word where does the word automatically in the concept automatically automatically out does it well that's exactly what it says and that's exactly how it's been applied here just look at the at the order of this appeal from if you'll recall what occurred here was in the vendor of two thousand and two years after the suspension years after reinstatement in other jurisdictions the district court all of a sudden became aware i don't know why it took that long because i had a certified letter much earlier but all the sudden became aware of this old arizona suspension and said pursuant to the other rule that's in question rule one point six years this pending you without any notice prior notice the opportunity to be heard review or anything else when that was challenged in the form of an objection letter the district court came back in march of two thousand and three and said well you're right perhaps we should have given you know this opportunity in and of the jeweler an independent review but we're not going to suspend you under the rule we said we were suspending you under back in november we're going to suspend you because you're no longer eligible to be a member of the bar because you've been suspended bodies for it's highly probable that you didn't get your snelling selling rights but it still seems to me that this rule simply describes a situation which is perfectly reasonable and understandable admission to continuing membership is limited to attorneys who are active members in good standing so if you're reselling into that and saying there's a good there's a due process requirement in this in this process the rule survives well how can the rule survive if if what you're saying is right then the natural result would be the court with some of this thing back down to the district court for the first selling hearing and what would happen after the selling hearing where the district court says well yeah the arizona was constitutionally defective you were looking in europe they waited half a dozen years to bring these charges and so forth and it's just crazy and so we don't we don't buy the state courts as mentioned but we really can't do anything about it because you're still not active member of the state or your purpose is to continue to practice in the district court in arizona yes my practice is exclusively federal now how do you distinguish this case from gallo gallo actually only had two respects gallo addressed only the membership requirement not the active membership requirement gallo was not a member of the arizona state bar at all secondly gala did not involve a suspension order gala was not a disciplinary matter but i know i understand that but the journal to the rule itself it held that the be active yes and the reason that works is if you look at yellow galahad gave two reasons why membership in the bar was a valid rationally related requirement one because it guaranteed it allowed the district court for rely on some guarantee of minimal competence and secondly because it so to speak streamlined the disciplinary process but both of those two considerations are met if you are a member of the bard self the active status requirement as little or nothing to what even suspected members are by operation of arizona state law members of the bar so they're still subject to the disciplinary side of the equation and they still passed the arizona state bar so your objective is to practice in federal court in arizona without being a member of the arizona state bar without having to file pro hockey to get applications i happen to be an individual homes and many places i maintain a home in arizona even though my primary practice is out of chicago and it would be very difficult for me to constantly file pro hockey to applications which was one of the considerations in gallo were gallo was an out of state authority didn't have that difficulty and that was one of the reasons that led the court to say well beach applications as an alternative for the individual are structured i suppose that's where we should start there are six classes five of which our members and one of which is not a disbarred attorney is no longer a member of the arizona state bar but everybody else has a judicial member an active and an active member a retired member and even a suspended member all of those classes of individuals with a little bit of a peculiarity in the case of the judicial member who need not even take in the arizona state bar are people who will in a short period of time normally on a ministerial basis what i would like what continuing education requirements are there of somebody who was an active member of the arizona state bar i hope i'm right because it's been a while but i think it's fifteen hours of classes is very comparable to what's required in other states and what is the continuing education requirement of somebody who's an active so i think that's one of the points of judge lectures making the court in deciding to piggyback on the state bar requirements assumes that the person is going to be staying up with the law in an active person can literally drop out completely come back twenty five years later and say i'm ready to go in federal court and you know whole idea of staying up to speed on what's elegantly even if this court says yes there was no selling cream or hearing here go back down for a hearing and even if the district court does what every other jurisdiction so far has done which is look at the arizona suspension order and say what w going on there we're not buying into this we're not going to give it full faith and credit even if the district court in arizona does that at the end of the day it will say yeah you shouldn't have been suspended but you're still suspended because you're not an active member of the bar and you can't get unsuspended unless you elect to reinstate in arizona which improperly suspended you in the first place it obviates the whole purpose of one hundred years of jurisprudence that says that federal bar membership well we certainly don't want to obviate a