completed right but fact this may be i'm sure you might argue that this is one of those situations where the supreme court rule might trump other legislative issues but in fact the rule is specific silly chip be considered different than the no collateral proceedings rule center speak her ok you know here the proof of serv did not contain enough it self section one one zero nine certificate language there was a random document along with it but it didn't state what it was for how does that comply with what the requirements are well if you look at the the one there is one certificate to be included you follow me here and he says this applies to change to the twelve rule twelve is that courts appellate courts across the state were recognizing that it's difficult for prisoners to get affidavits and to do certain things that they needed to do to file and there  dissents filed and you know we know we have to follow this rule but we're dissenting i think i might have filed one of them so finally the supreme court changes the rule but in changing the rule should not be complied with each of the information in each of these documents is correct right now the amendment says there has to be a complete address in the proof of service we don't have a complete address if you did not is that a completely dress i mean i think the postmaster would figure out where he needs to go but use that in fact the dress contemplated by the rule was i mean isn't that a concern of the rule that we know who sufficient address it says complete address those are two different words so if it wasn't satisfied with the situation you know the sketch you have indicated in your brief as well as in your argument here today that you're the only issue before this cour not even addressed that in your reply brief other than to say the very end that the court never made a finding and this is you know i don't think it's appropriate for this court to go forward twenty explain that a does it is it limited and i were part of a limited jurisdiction but the rules give us certain things to do that we can do can you what is your limits or could you be second stage counsel i guess is what i'm asking that this was timely and in compliance and we take your recommendation to remain and what are we remaining for second or third as a matter of law has to be a third correct it is true that the judge below will one time this and it is our position that the judge was correct in the petition was on time but there is a number of cases that say that even if the judge usually the judge makes certain statements of fact that he used or she used statements of law that he or she agreed with on these merits we don't have anything other  what we usually see a judge saying is the evidence is overwhelming there's no reason whatever the case may be we don't have that in this case impurity you know there is no ruling on the  or would you ask us to find i guess would be more appropriate that counsel has forfeited here is the issue of the merits by virtue of the argument here or you're just asking us to look at turning from minute to the time in this issue which we talked about first you indicate that the proof of service was completed so there were no more proceedings and due to which the certificate  saying hunter and you wrote concerning the family the complaints would not govern an action in which the complaints are you've been properly filed and the overall regime when you're talking about a proceeding thereafter is the actual filing of the document that could be deemed all required affidavits and everyone if you can appeal here is an ingredient that there was no affidavit so that point there was nothing for there for this difficult to be done there was no further for better better term proceeding that could occur on the actual certificate of service and when you look at the station statutes and and looking at them whether or not a procedural rule is retroactive from an applicable because there was an issue with getting notarization affidavit and i know i agree with that but i also don't believe that that means that we show open the floodgates to allow any and the visual to n that an awful long relation back to fila to find a new rule applicable to a defendant and which then goes back to the argument which is what is the actual proceedings there death six fifty one c certificate that was being addressed isn't it correct how is that different than the content of this proof of service and what it said it is it different isn't and so so the judge is supposed to make specific findings if he or she doesn't then we can do several things send it back to our fine did they were inherent in the decision is there anything in the p c act that requires  decision that you know we couldn't challenge or if it was valid if there were arguments to be made to the judge's decision was wrong but at the same time the judge we can't sit with him argue that the