the agent’s failure to interview Freeman was cured by the opportunity she was given at the de novo hearing to provide the trier of fact, the Hearing Examiner, with all evidence possessed personally and her witnesses. Factor Number Three ¶ 66. In regards to factor three, the Commission responds that the Hearing Examiner simply followed the mandate of the statutory scheme as passed by our state legislature. See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-161 (1991). Further, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-168(1) specifically puts the burden on the petitioner. ¶ 67. The Commission points out that a similar burden is put on the petitioner throughout Mississippi law. Mississippi Dep’t of Corrections v. McClee, 677 So.2d 732, 734 (Miss.1996); see also Ricks v. Mississippi State Dep’t of Health, 719 So.2d 173 (Miss.1998)(<HOLDING>); State v. Beebe, 687 So.2d 702
holding that guidelines create a rebuttable presumption recognizing a rebuttable presumption of reliance in rule 10b5 holding that where the issue is one of arbitrability the federal presumption in favor of arbitration shifts to favor a court determination holding unconstitutional a mandatory rebuttable presumption that shifted to the defendant a burden of persuasion on the issue of intent holding that a rebuttable presumption in favor of the action of an administrative agency and the burden of proof is upon one challenging its action