pursuing her rights as a child to everett egypt she has lived her life as a victim of such confusion concealment by her parents and other family members and as a result that only did she become an ability to claim right on the day but she was also severely financially damaged she never received support from every d j of an episode was orphaned and she has suffered the financial consequences of being excluded from inheritance this is a big significant the family member or least she didn't have any up to that she was and so she did some digging and at that time two different people disclosed to her that her mother had told her that her father was everett egypt now it wasn't that there wasn't some thought in her mind as a child because why she had asked this man if he was her father and one time he didn't give her a straight answer and the second time he flat out tonight based upon this new information from aig see it would have been a point we know we're past the two year period under two fourteen zero one there's no question that we know that so the question becomes whether we can use the fraudulent concealment exception to the two y limitation in to dash fourteen zero one to reopen these family funeral as a visitation now these demons are interrelated just so you know this is going down in illinois and it's not a big community and  and so it's not unusual for these families to be a common visitations i guess is my point so they never met with each other was she knew who charlotte was and charo takes her into a pew and tells her father's daughter she also told me that he didn't want to believe that about his dad at that time i didn't know whether or not to believe what she said she wrote a contact information for me on a church  what you got because i don't want to go ahead and file something in the probate cases to establish that i'm a part owner of this and i want to claim my inheritance the answer would have ben i do not have any knowledge of any fact whereby her mother had concealed the eggs and said the father was thirty five fifty she had twice asked ever since and the second time was in a time when i would say that public policy of the state of illinois would say that he had a duty to tell her the truth because at that point her mother had died and she was going to be made a ward of the courts because she had no declare  as a daughter of his father side i have nothing to back it to anything like that i've got nothing about no facts i have no knowledge of any facts that would support the contention that she's a child so regardless of what that forth in our petition which is we have two statements by the mother identifying him as the father ok that's the primary evidence in the p we're going to use identification we're going to use similarities but we have got you statements if we didn't have the two statements made with we would have only a circumstantial case but in this case that becomes  you you have to when you conceal a cause of action you still have to have you have to presume the cause of action exists otherwise it can't be concealed ok so i mean we may eventually lose the ca cancel the souls of each other because the court never addressed the merits of the case the court never made a credibility determination here the court never really looked at how telling the truth and who's not amount of that conversation the basis of the absolutely we have a judicial admission on the sworn affidavit stating that a particular conversation took place and when the court room had gearing is required where the facts are contested however the court never got there never got that far the the case was dismissed prior to the time that the of merits could be addressed it was found to be on time like no just two of them say one more thing about the evidence rehearing they never made a request for an of personal injury actually medical malpractise any kind of tort action they get two years filed a complaint and they can use all of that time or none of it you know they can file it on the last day before the statute runs and that's perfectly acceptable if you were dealing with something altogether different it's a two dash fourteen a one petition to vacate a judgment and diligence permeates every aspect of that type of action if you explain why you waited so long there is case law out there work petitions to vacate judgment have been dismissed for lack of diligence because they were filed six months after the judgment you insurance is a critical component of this entire case now we're dealing with a very unusual case or we have a individual who from the time she was a small child somehow knew that e telephone now that apparently somebody had been telling her that ever in egypt and was her father we don't know how or why did that we know was her mother but i have a child of seven years old already convinced the one thing we do know is that her entire life she suspected that every german was her father and on august two thousand  nineteen as an adult she's of had a conversation according to her affidavit which charlotte should wear for the first time it was confirmed that over egypt it was her father nothing she didn't investigate at all so the question was really only one question in this case will start to a simple question do good to know your limitations period begin to run on the date she spoke with  was a family member that's why she was at a visitation but i digress so charlotte jordan according to the group claimed to have information secondhand from a dead man that couldn't this is second hand information from a dead woman that could not be verified by him and who provided no factual basis for the dead man's knowledge and you see what i'm getting at here is it's in extent that she found charlotte  written statement but did not end when charlotte shouldn't have told the same thing six months earlier or sometimes or six years earlier it just makes no sense we submit that when she capable of investigating this problem it would have been her she would have known to ask people like william j the right girl or a leader name is far on she could have done that but she  all just a few moments ago karl said well she didn't know me personally whether she could believe charlotte jeb and that's not the test here it's an objective test suspicion a reasonable suspicion of injury well of course she's been know this is her last father she's been written out of the will she's been the proud owner of an inheritance of course she there's of knowledge of an injury and that that when it was up to her you know i look at the war her mission and that and i think well i can live with that because i think that she did have reason to suspect that she had been assured that just that she there was no injury and that it was wrongfully cause any even the hermit hear i think that she's under no duty to god you know certainly under no legal obligation but sued to inform her of these facts and put that with the ball in her court but at that point she has something to do what other evidence do we have here i have to admit you know i learned something in this case i was mistake i looked at this is hearsay that would be inadmissible in order and opposing briefs and we haven't spent time at all argument on that issue but it's a it's a secondary not the fore reopening that case and it's based upon the the the procedur knew this the son knew ok not that his father told him it's different than the types of things that she was told later by william and of what's conveyed there is different and the bottom line is this is good god most of what was said there we know that charlotte had no evidence to back it up so she called him on the phone the next day and said nothing i can't help you or reopen those probate cases because despite whatever you proved in the few that day my religion versus your version i have no fa