administrative decision or that a final administrative decision form the parties either of the statutory availability of judicial review or the jurisdictional that i need to three and the sports authority provided a decision is being served when a copy of it is positive and the mail is charged with knowing the law regarding service that the date of mailing is the service with all of this information in the notice where there was a late complaint for administrative review filed before this issue no no this would have been filed where the  is a teacher she was indicated in this case by the department for corporal punishment rothchild after a lot of litigation about that within the department she was actually placed on the state's  year fine without judicial review of it you know you if you're say home mom you can't go into it two years later and say wait a minute now i want to be a daycare now i want to be a teacher it's five years there's no form of judicial review into the five years and i do think that makes this case different than some of the pension review cases and some of the it is some of the cases about money that i don't think makes it a little different but i do think that the stakes are very high for people in  as the attorney filed the complaint on day thirty six that that attorney we knew that things had to get moving and to be safe but there's a real distinction here between sort of best practices and what is essentially required by to process i think we have to distinguish between everybody agrees best practice would be to file on day seventeen of best practice would be to file it as soon as it goes further than that right i mean the complaint indicates that the you used the words that the order was issued to plaintiff on july third that's what the complaint says well that's certainly the case that's certainly the date on the decision the freeze issue or the phrase  if a if a phrase was used in the pointing out i don't know that we have a phone waiver problem but if that phrase was used in the complaint by way of background i do think that's different than the phrase service with which we're sort of yeah right and that's another point i mean you talks about are how she consulted some alternatives to talk about the day she actually received the notice now i absolutely understand we absolutely understand that the attorney is also a good person to receive the  we see in criminal law it's different as the appellate court pointed out there's different times that you can seek jurisdiction for a good cause to sort of reinvest a criminal court with jurisdiction and in criminal cases rip p c p petitions we have all sorts of absolutely critical under to process that a party be informed of the mailing date because it is the start it is the start of the jurors to the start because it would be fair not to tell a party where the where the race was going to be or what time they had to be at the res so he she is your future complained about the rules in the law or is it about the procedure that the department ask yes thanks for the and then let me ask another monday that's not fair that's not that's not the most basic noticed provision and the reason why the reason rule twelve comes up i completely understand it will twelve supreme court will twelve that the original affidavit from this crime talks about talking to several attorneys the record does not appear to represent you one way or the other the record has no information whose duty with the from a diligence perspective if you're confused when you needed to file complaint what's whose duty is it and does due diligence require that you take some steps they answer to in the data mail and especially when in fact several times in your brief you claim that means that this is important than a big keep doing it even though they were warned about it as really in some time ago but the diligence question is hard because the application of one of the three is a jurisdictional that and so when you're her salt should start making phone calls to d c i guess about the date of the mailing i think practically that's that's going to be difficult and i want to i wan mailing are about a different type of argument that someone in this claims position so we have these arguments about the jurisdiction that but misprint could have and did not litigate when the mailing occur because in other words it graham could have shown that the mailing for example occurred on the next day that she would have she would have relief but that didn't happen but all of the cases that are about that presumption are in the context written i mean talk about the sort of assumption there might be on the next day i respectfully i don't think we should make any assumptions about anything when lawyers throughout this state on a daily basis sign rules flow statements about the date that they is not saying that she has to be apprised of law and that's a little bit about what cars are certainly about excluding agency and certainly about when you have to have that language that you have thirty five days to see judicial carol case it says thirty five days from the date of this one there is languish in this record it talks about sixty days of the day the letter that is fine in terms of fear is my only concern with that is you know the statute talks about  written test the government must provide basic notice let's be entitled to procedural due process in the first place a constitutional right has to be and and likely it was here during the administrative proceedings process springs from where it springs you just said that you agree that there is it the right to procedural due process generally in this kind of hearing the arguments made is that there is a this question of this individual would information from it looting a school superintendent for example and doing a background check teacher i was protected interest was implicated as it as it likely would have been here and why and then or can someone just say that this stigma generally marking me as someone who has abused a child is sufficient to trigger the due process rights i think this court held in line that seeing that statement alone is not enough isn't implicated which this court has held that it is not when you're talking about information relative only to the opportunity to seek judicial review and you don't have to balance the factors to determine if procedural due process was satisfied