court today however i want to focus on just one well settled issue and that is the notion of due process and the idea that in america everyone is entitled to a fair opportunity to contest the government's findings before those they can be deprived of their property administrative procedures act was written and designed to protect this constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right that is why under section seven thousand and sixty two as interpreted by the supreme court in citizens to preserve overton park requires mean the overturn park exception has been so rarely used and it's been used in this circumstance where it was clear that the people who were making that decision or by because they were involved in it they  were part of that i alleged wrongdoing so you know that just seems i'm not sure that that's if you're going to be have what i make i haven't spoken with the other judges on the panel so i may be alone in my  where do i mean when they say they were rats fundamental notions of due process you know judge henry friendly and is highly influential some kind of hearing article list the three most important aspects of due process as an unbiased three of those things one is stuck to his office or has shown that she was not in bias in her deciding case when she chose to introduce a new issue in a new argument that directly contradicted findings possibly done when when everyone agrees on the main argument that's been made at the district court that been made that was relied on below is that it was a willful violation and that was that was incorporated in the original findings from the revenue agent that was the stain by the appeals court that was the basis of the district court summary judgment and that's the argument before us what even if there was this alternative finding no one seems to have relied on it that is not the case or there are two main manual says that if the amount in the account that the amount that that's at issue here is above a certain threshold then they're required to apply the maximum and that mitigation does not apply if if the penalty is assessed here and they are just that side lines to a need and the exercise of discretion by the examiner and they have the ability to determine if a lesser penalty or even no penalty is one said under the facts now this is court would like an example of deficiencies in this proceeding mr rahman was never given that opportunity he never had a chance to argue before the administration that he qualified for mitigation by misleading him as to the time she had ever done a case like this and she did not read the manual before she did her case and her communications to the asian she missed the rules now she will be wanting thank you and her communications because the system we told him those four boxes that would entitle his medication and it would make a difference even if you think you did we know that mr wrong was represented by an attorney i guess you say and the reason he didn't qualify for the now rather than correctness around about the fact that if he agreed to the front he could not get a twenty percent penalty the rules just didn't allow it that challenge or allow him to continue arguing that and only talked about that one issue and her record and her knuckles indicate that on the day of the hearing she did not even know that the mitigation factors were an issue in the case so she heeded matt has any opportunity to present arguments because he thought that the only way to get the penalty reduce was to agree to the fraud so the actual hearing which took place he did not contest and he thought that he had to agree to the fraud and she let him take