court gave labels for its decision but really described to much in depth how it reached those conclusions as to mr things which arose out of the citation proceedings there's no better explanation of this and this court's decision o'connor versus pharmaco say that's how you start it at once it starts with citation on anybody else and the facts might develop you would be interested in getting relief of yes and so will know that was the case then you never know until the end of the case but the court has subject ma jurisdiction because things may develop that more more people would be served with various papers and rants and so forth in the course of in the course of the brought to the trial for whatever reasons the trial concluded and then finally this person more filed in the proceedings were made against him for violating the command of the subpoena he could say well the trials are over i mean i hid out as long as it was necessary for you to get to trial to judgment and therefore your authority over me is as it disappeared just when it just destroy course power and authority to enforce its wrists it makes no sense and it has has no case law support except for the chicago title case and in that case the  teleporter said yes now that now it's a six month period during which the citation proceedings right effect has passed we can issue any contempt proceedings against somebody who violated the restraining jurisdiction doesn't affect the rate that way the need to enforce orders exist and never really seizes to exist that that's how that's how we conduct this whole to its extreme it would mean that in every single case someone representing a judgment creditor incitation proceedings would have to request that these proceedings be continued  indefinitely and would have to take an appeal from any denial of a request for that relief because you never know when you're going to find that the citation restraining provisions were violated in this case for example we didn't find it but in this issue and then of course india interesting to hear what the answer is as to how far enforcement proceedings would have to go but they have to be started with they actually have to go to it's it's well i'm not i'm not saying that to proceed ings extend beyond six months i'm saying the court's authority just like quite example about a subpoena i'm not saying the trial still going on safe you find the guy to violate a subpoena three days three months three years after the trial i wouldn't argue that the trial was still being conducted i would say that if we don't punish people who violate the everything he had december first but but my point is that the the dissipate of assets the violation of the restraining provision took place after the will permit it so are you implying that they are saying that there is some way the court can force an order but walker his attorney for shipping picked the wrong way i don't know i don't understand your to share a judge i don't totally understand your question but if you're saying there's some sort of non jurisdictional sorta like a procedural time period or sensing a supply company ok well i don't know any case that relief against parties of violating the provisions of those of the risk of the citation and there's there's no indication in there how far the pla all long and his efforts to have the sanctions administered have at whatever trying period it was i mean do you have to do this you know as i mentioned before you have to s obey the terms of the citation at the end of the six months if there is no order against him her it they are free to transfer assets and so forth but during the six month period they they're supposed to obey it just like make any difference what the nature of the order is you are liable to sanctions if we don't have that people just go around thumbing their nose it chordal there's it going back to the sixpence period is sort of that and then my point is they transferred during the six months so they violated the restraining provisions now it they also were ordered before the six month period was over to transfer the assets they had on hand as of december one and so that would be an additional thing that would give the core power in other words the court made that order the court then going to the other argument which is personal jurisdiction whole course or with a motion in the age of execution by mail  in the o'connell versus pharmaco case again nothing is better for me than the language of that opinion citing actual notice is enough of course ok and all kinds are actual notice he had so much actual notice he's litigating the matter in the bankruptcy court once the c p all transferred the the motion to bankruptcy court and not only did he have the actual end of this but he waived his personal jurisdiction argument by arguing the merits firstly are in damascus in the bankruptcy court and the best of those arguments are on page twenty two of our brief  through mr shine it was a turnover order for fifty nine thousand dollars would receive only the money order entered in the citation proceedings according to the times rule two seventy seven the citation mr sharon's brief this support the chicago title case and i think that we have adequately distinguish the cases mr walker cited in that regard mr ship does argue that any orders and during the citation is self should be enforced even though in spite of the expiration of the six month period court orders otherwise well rizzoli one order for the payment of money order entered during the six month or so and that was this time no order of fifty nine thousand dollars and while i was stand on the chicago title case this is he can enforce that order he was there mr walker's argument relying on the last census to seventy seven the only order for the payment of money issued during the six months was the order for fifty nine thousand dollars and he has never explained how he converted houle an order for fifty nine thousand dollars becomes a claim for three million dollars it just doesn't make sense should be liable for even the fifty thousand dollars hope was never part of the citation and he can't be retroactively converted to a party by a about ok ok this mr volcker is wasn't served with anything well he wasn't properly served period but he wasn't served with anything to be made a party to this citation at all in till the and following the rules is absolutely required end of the case law mr walker argues waiver but there was no waiver in this case whatever mr hope did in the bankruptcy court has nothing to do with well heat the chicago title case when the point anymore i think they're going to be all sort of factual issues your honor because i mean when you dig down into this record if you dig down the exhibits the file you know in the citation proceedings you wonder the citation it's exhibit number seven in the supplementary record so i mean we all say well you know we're not up on that issue but folks and and that and since my client is alleged to be even though he wasn't the attorney for c b hall based on the allegations i mean i gave my answer based on the allegations and i'm not sure is no jurisdiction over the case with respect to you know there's a there's a concept the jurisdiction over the case as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction all right so with respect to defendant codefendant shine there was no jurisdiction over the case which is sort of what your your question was suggesting your procedural question was suggesting with respect to rule two seventy seven  so you know i'm not trying to be cute i think that's the fact the other thing i want to address and this a match or goes to the caribbean can wait issues in this appeal but i may as well address it is i'm by practice a bankruptcy lawyer and supplemental proceedings we call  in cooking lake it's and you do it you literally may do it for three or four years if it's a big enough judgment and merits doing if you are on the trail of assets but getting specifically to the queen can only appeal on you know clute always always appeared in this case on a limited basis to contest personal jurisdiction and all of the case was cited the case law that's been discussed this morning where a court has ever extended personal jurisdiction in a supplemental proceeding to a non purdie has been with respect to a close insider in other words the c e o or the it's the majority shareholder and you know this that we sue them of the case was clear that to the extent of court goes beyond the actual purry to a citation and allows an foresman of the citation against the third party it has to be a close insider and there's just no reason for this court to do what no coryell annoying state or federal has ever done before going beyond that you know there's no question that after the motion in aid of execution of judgment was crushed by judge lawrence in the circuit  court there was a recent new notice was served personally on to in conway with the all motion attached but that's still not enough to create personal jurisdiction because as judge laurence rule when he gave both his rulings first of all you have to serve it properly as just another version of a citation discover assets it has to be done with a citation issued by the clerk in the county where the third party or the defendant resides and you can't create personal jurisdiction by having a clerk in mclean county issue a citation that you know to be incorrect i mean that just wouldn't be fair because then you're hauled into a court that only has personal jurisdiction against you because someone else has done something improper and while it's been describe venue i do not read that provision of the supreme court rules as a venue provision i read it as a tourist fictional provision the civil procedure supplemental proceeding rule says you have to commence it with a summons for a citation issued by the clerk address i think it's the last argument raised with respect to korean conway mr shipley's counsel presents this is just an order for contempt but once again that puts the cart before the horse because first of all nobody acted in contempt of judge lawrence i want that to be clear and you know we haven't got to the facts but to say that amounts been made out of a molehill would be understatement but regardless you can't act in contempt of a chord that has no jurisdiction over so to say that this is no different than a contempt proceedings really doesn't get us anywhere because there was never a jurisdiction and therefore never in order to control us on which we could be in contempt your honor the list of questions i would just ask the panel to affirm the circuit court th and another fellow named robert stegman said this in lengthy minutes in o'connell this court affirmed a trial court's judgment at a supplemental proceeding that held that officer of a corporate judgment debtor personally liable for the corporation's debt even though he was not formally made a defendant before judgment was interviewed against him o'connell does establish that a trial court may enter judgment against a third party at a supplementary any these are the facts in them and the motion hole course the only person who wrote checks hope wrote the checks that transferred the assets during the six month period hocus the only person who got the bank statements hokus the only one who made the decisions as to who would get money so that council says well you know we have got to the faction i'm comfortable getting to the facts i'm just saying our motion in aid of execution is verified because for just a few days from the end of the six month shyne says and this is a page a one seventy one mr sharon's appendix which also reflects where it is in the actual record science as well you know maybe we could agree to extend it and it was a point that i can't accurately summarize it all here in the last thirty seconds or whatever i've got laughs but i think when you read it you will see that one of the things i said would even if it's continued as to it to see the whole what about other people who might have an interest in it nobody's a dream to continue it on their part