that i face in my conversation with you today in the tradition of the ancient greeks with the correct place to start in this instance would be with concessions and conceding that when it comes to the law that certainly what too as a recent point out talk about in terms of logic why this is a potential for this court to examine and certainly in terms of our concepts of justice and and fair play and allowing citizens to enjoy the the constitutional rights that they do why it's important for this court to take a look at it certainly and i'd like to acknowledge first one of the truest points i think that appears in my opposing parties brief this the last page in their conclusion or next us a page forty nine they discuss that statutes of limitations are not trivial and that they are not and that they are essential or vital i believe is the word they use for the orderly administration of justice and i couldn't agree more but in that contained in that is the word justice and it requires the administration of justice not the administration of just legal process but the administration of justice and it is a heck would serve to prohibit the expansion of texas into this context i think are very good reasons why it should but nothing in the in that case and the orderly administration of justice would prohibit the application of tech to this case and that's ultimately what we're arguing about here today certainly at the time that haeckel decided that body of law didn't exist that tolling in that instance of a criminal prosecution did not exist  had the opportunity to go to the high court of that state and not so to argue that that case was in part resided but they chose not to pursue that aren't on the next stage of the appeal in the sequence system i think it tends to cut against that collateral stop argument but that's all or say on that what we do have is two courts in new mexico first the district court level overturning the board licenses decision which i believe occurred in january of two thousand and eleven so there's an argument that this case accrue certainly when the district court overturned the board licensors decision i think that the equitable principle of the figure certainly an issue there's also some confusion i would note in the briefing of the account emergency the concerning equitable that was an act of polling that it took something of an essential fact needed for this case for the claim out of out of the realm of the pointers at that juncture and it really wasn't until the state chose not to take it to the supreme court that we and extending hec to this type of an instance now i would anticipate the court would have something that concern and some questions regarding well this isn't really necessarily a criminal conviction just doesn't really fit into that i think that it's more squarely into that box and it does the other side of the government action to the price somebody of their first amendment rights like perhaps excluding them from a meeting or some some other or what are the  a civil prosecution there's the the loss of property there's a fine of twenty five hundred dollars that that was ultimately assessed the cost of twenty five hundred dollars i think that's more akin to a criminal proceeding than it is to some other type of of infringement upon a person right so the facts that i think really warrant this discussion here today are those facts that citizens of this box rather than shooting that box going further i think that if you look at the facts the other side of this is was an equitable principle asking an individual to incur the cost of not only maintaining attorneys in an underlying proceeding but also maintaining attorneys to start a new proceeding i think is prohibitive to that to the average since i think that's an equitable factor the sport should consider dr turner frankly didn't have the ability to maintain two actions and he didn't know for sure that he had an action which is the other equable fact that i think i would look at at some point there's those those rights of the state has to regulate that profession infringed upon this constitutional right i believe that that the fact that the court of appeals found that is a fact that weighs in in terms of actually presenting this case in the point of the underlying action was that the chief engineer and the press secretary working for the state in or for the the chief engineer for the district did not like the fact that he was highlighting perhaps improprieties and that's where we get to the point california where somebody was civilly committed to a facility for sexual predators there was another case where somebody was it was a an alien immigrant this i think the way the court especially what i heard him say is he wants a first amendment exception two accrual of action in this particular case we know that dr turner is well educated we know from his litigation history it's been a complaint and an amended complaint he is no stranger to litigation he was represented by counsel throughout the administrative proceedings so this is not a situation where equitable tolling would be involved he was not deceived by anybody as to what was going on he was not misled by anybody as to what was going on he was aware every step of the way he knew and then the stumbles lost the sense that complaints to the board of licensure he knew when the board of he knew that the district court reversed the b o l decision and parents adequately added by the way we think you are i think your first amendment rights were violated that was on january february two thousand and eleven more than four years before this lawsuit was filed so this is not a situation where somebody is tricked misled to sleep on his or her rights he was represented by counsel was not mr d so this was not mr dunn's mistake that mr dunn is now here sane i don't really have an explanation other than what i hope is that this court will take the next step and extend hack into this situation and the closest he's got in terms of analogy to the criminal situation is that dr turner was potentially subject to a twenty five hundred dollar fine now that's what the penalty was imposed by the deal well they said you can appear it will twenty five hundred dollars fine and you can take the administrative costs of of another twenty five twenty six hundred dollars dr turner immediately was able to not only appeal to the district court but to get the district court to enter a state so this criminal penalty qualified criminal penalty was prospected speculative and then the question becomes is a civil penalty a criminal penalty  if if this court for example were to sanction me for some reason that did not involve criminal contempt would i have to step over into the criminal side of things me sometimes civil bodies like boards of licensure have the ability to find people who go off the reservation and this is what dr turner was accused of doing he was successful in overturning that decision and that's fine but the question speech coming back to your cause of action is not only right it is really right and so the question is when you have a crew of action how do you decide what does he know and when does he know it dr turner knew every step of the but going forward and i do not represent the b o well mr marcus is here to represent them they found after a hearing and evidence and witnesses and everybody at that hearing was represented by counsel they found that dr turner had a violated the mexico law with respect to practicing without a proper license  i'm not here to say what they did was smart right but it's what they did and dr turner was aware that that's what they did and then when it goes to fish for court and the district court vindicate dr turner's position and adds and oh by the way not only were you not practicing without a license i think your first amendment rights were violated that january tree two thousand and eleven three two thousand and eleven more lawyers and dr turner who is a very intelligent educated man he no he said look at the calendar he sat on his right this was it was not filed until april two thousand and fifteen i want to see the rest of my time to mr marcus because he represents the board of licensure and the individual defendant associated with them thank you your honors may it please the court where marcus on behalf of the state of power is romero any party of the b l l and of the attorney general state attorney general's office i want to say at the outset that the state of adopt all of mr baker's arguments regarding the statute of limitations they apply equally to the state to tell reason are grounds to affirm the district court decision in addition i want to call the court's attention to two other arguments that also independently clearly support the district from its of the district court decision first is absolute immunity mr romero is entitled to absolute judicial immunity miss smith and mystery  further even if they are not entitled to absolute immunity they're certainly entitled to qualified immunity your honors i want to note that the district court in its decision it based its dismissal of all three of the state of to absolute immunity mr romero it was the he was the head of the engineering committee of the board of licensure and he dragged a chorus of complaint drafted the order saying that mr  practiced engineering without a license as such he was a decision maker he was akin to the two persons in the the government versus calls the case where the decision maker a hearing officer for a new something bored with this next case with the medical board was found to be protected by absolute judicial immunity that what he was doing was he was acting acquires a judicial role and therefore any absolute immunity applied to him as well subjected to first amendment liability and there was nothing in the court of appeal of the mix of court of appeal decision they base their decision on the on distinguishing basically another state case state versus congress in which which they held that a medical board did not violate the first amendment rights so this is especially unprecedented it was a matter of first impression essentially and totally impressed that there was therefore there's no clearly established rights and secondly it's also well known that i agree your honor that i think that's apparent from our briefing that that is the threshold question but to touch on the comments made by mr marcus just before he he sat down in response to question i think your question justice here regarding this to i think that's the conduct that we're talking about which would of course then get to the question of qualified immunity and to say that the first amendment right to exercise your speech is not a cure this that was right and that they had no idea that what they were doing  not going to violate that right i don't think holds a lot of water no pun intended for the fact this is an irrigation district is doing it the only other thing that i would touch on with my remaining time would be the the statements by mr baker that th to you do to throw the doors wide open i'm not we're not that wouldn't be appropriate we are asking for a narrowly tailored exception subject similar to hack and it's in it's not we're going through all the way it's that we want you to take a look at this particular proceeding and look and see if this priest particular proceeding doesn't fit within that heck rubric from the united states supreme court and so what or what about the time or what allow for that i mean it's not it's not