we're here today on what i believe to be a simple case for your honour's ultimately first off let me and i want to thank you for hearing this out today i want to thank you all for taking the sort of my questions these questions a lot of research by the trial court does mean a lot to myself and i know it does the typically as well i hope to be able to answer all questions today i do as i said believe that this is a simple issue of jurisdiction at the end of the day there are three certified questions because obviously the argument but the it had the legislature sought to make exceptions for individuals who filed by or that is who had motions were sentients heard following the expiration of an order and obviously would have provided for that it obviously had the ability to know whether or not a toy would happen obviously as the fact that as was referenced in the trial court transcript one of the issues one of the things that the court cited two was a matter of public policy was that individuals representing themselves might not be aware of that and so for that reason it's very likely that hearing on a motion to extend might happen after the expiration this is not something that i'm sure the legislature wasn't aware of or didn't know could happen and had the legislature invision to make exceptions for purposes of tolling the legislature would have done so i do think that when you pass an act like this especially with the history that we have which shall i say to sister ac of that is the domestic violence act with orders of protection and that sort of thing the legislature certainly aware of the fact that there could be extensions that are soft following the expiration of an order this i think that i don't think that's giving them too much credit but maybe i'm wrong on that and i have been often wrong when it comes to legislature apportion the second thing that brings us to whether or not the court has jurisdiction following the expiration and again the second issue whether under the provisions of twenty one o five the court has jurisdiction well and i think that that's an interesting point the let's court and this is this is a this is a good point i wish to make the less court of our court before district found that the passage of mere hours of time was de minimu say here you have a motion first century now what again why it's important to point out that that was one of the message violence that and it should go without saying that the message violence and the reasons why there orders of protection in the first place is in the public interest to protect individuals and that speaks that should go without saying that individuals willing to abuse harass threaten family members for the greater danger to the public and as somebody new such as this case might be a next door neighbor that  said i think the court obviously took that purpose into account that is the purpose of the message violence acting lation orders of protection when finding at a five hour passage of time was a de minimus amount of time why does lots of traffic or here so there's no extreme public interest of protecting an individual like under the domestic violence act in the last case i think that i don't think that it's too far a stretch to say five hours you know if the burden isn't so great on somebody after five hours this isn't such a this is at the minimum  anybody with a straight face to work thirty three days is obviously not of the mysterians i'm assuming that lots was correct side and so you get into a situation where and even in the gritty they knowledge during this thirty three days they sought that they're not asking for protection from the court during this time which kind of begs the question of why what was the order to enforce in the first place and if not how can it possibly be extended if you're not period and we all know that that's not the case when a court last or a station a can enter an order but that doesn't prevent the petitioner from filing a new petition for emergency or plenary no stalking no contact order and during that time there would not be any protection just as counsel of was not seeking any protection during those three years now counsel in his brief argues that filing for a new petition that this would be in part and parcel with these owners pleading requirements i think a couple of things i can i think this is another argument that takes a it's hard to make with a straight face and the reason why if you refer to yourself to the record on appeal and you look at the original petition for emergency you know stocking more egret has greater detail in it and as the motion for ascension and the information that's in their emergency petition for no stocking order how much much more additional information is really on we have the respondents name and he have his address besides that is there a whole lot of additional information and there's not if that's an onerous pleading requirement and i don't know why require people to put captions on cases and filings it  f again i don't think that that's an argument that that holds water for that purpose furthermore if the statutory purpose were to be frustrated by the court losing jurisdiction after an order expires and again maybe  legislation which deference here with the legislature not have included the tolling provision if it's the statutory it's the legislature's purpose in passing the statute that counsel to which counsel is referring and this is obviously a predictable ourselves to the sashing to the plain meaning of and when doing that it's really tough to read into that statute that the court somehow has jurisdiction for an extended period of time after maybe they were once and decided they didn't need to well and i let's i faced a true case then i absolutely more power to him thirty three days versus five hours there you go effect split the legislature had in mind in this red lights and said hey this is that the men in this period of time and certainly the it that would be the past and logical conclusion would it that infinite jurisdiction is the best way to make sure that no such story purpose ever is frustrating under any circumstances and that's kind of the logical conclusion that council makes in our br for which the court has no jurisdiction certainly having to add information like an address and that's where the bank can be really seen as as being that difficult that doesn't mean that's it that's kind of a to saying that well if a petition were required if the main argument there is that the judge heard the emergency petition and plenary titian is the best position to grant the most stand that arguments very well taken kind of ignores the fact however that a motion to extend and with a new petition being filed petitioner still bears the burden and that burden has to be there no matter what and if judge enters the plenary order of protection and here's the evidence for that and and of the the bases in the area there's absolutely no harm in doing that and those that oppose on judge b then such a burden that judicial economy considerations should over shatter the expiration of an order i already know i argue that if that's the consideration then that's what we are if that's additional kind of is ultimately the end result the ultimate me concern then we would and i don't think that and again that the court made a finding that this is without prejudice for purposes of piling the the appeal and i do think that and i didn't want to thank your runners for taking this court for taking these sort of my questions because i doing this is an important issue and frankly your honour's i think that the it just simply recites the statute it only applied that force in the statute placed on contested motions that is that there's no material change in circumstances they are cases that i'm fearf i think part of the concern here is when you start talking about jurisdiction that is a l well the constitution the only constitution circuit courts have jurisdiction over all just  the question is was it filed in the correct court yes that was the case cited by the respondent and that would be people be nelson that was prior to illinois ratifying the constitution in one nine hundred seventy thousand nine hundred sixty five case and that argument that the courts only have jurisdiction by statute that's gone under the constitution today to the circuit court has  i don't think i touched on that in my brief foley i used the term jurisdiction and hindsight i should have used the term authority does the court have authority to enter an extended order after the order of protection has expired that would have been the better term to use because the court plainly had jurisdiction here in fact they had jurisdiction the first time they would maintain it the entire time so once that border expires those the court does under lots and even if you throw it out you think big picture how to apply the law it would still have authority and the argument about the minimus time had i shown up here at three fifteen i'm willing to bet that consistent with what's that's what lusted ninety five straight on point and the scheme of the act is the exact same that we have here the language is the same the general simply knew that this act was passed after  that is the law so i wish i'd touched on that more it mid layer price should have thought of it sooner as i think that's the law well i'm not sure of following you're saying you should use the term already rather than yours what's the diff the difference is this does the court is it just issue woman that's jurisdiction i think when we start talking authority or does the court have the power based upon the statute i think the court can still hear the case now it was not heard until thirty three days after the motion filed the motion was filed before the order of spock the court could have looked at me and said mr galloway nothing has happened in the last thirty three days since this order expired i don't think we need the sort of nothing bad has happened but the cour still gets to hear that controversy it still has jurisdiction so i think that is and that's we start getting into the argued about does the court have the authority does the general assembly mean to restrict the court and that's when we start touching on foley and  i did touch on that in my brief and i said it simply doesn't apply and here's why tolling doesn't apply i never sought to enforce this order during the time that it was expired that's totally the statute cited by the respondent make a seven thirty i'll see if i slice five for that talks about tolling supervision conditional discharge probation those are things that are still in effect after they were sets fire that's not what we did here so that is told and then all the case all the talks about the statue limitations heard before the x ration of the plenary or why doesn't that dictate in eat why couldn't we just call that the law the case well they could be the order but the problem is expiration make sure you can get say in part which was not done isn't that right yes ok but that is a matter for the trial court to decide that doesn't die best the court of jurisdiction and for the certified question does the mean and laws it was already expired and they still extended it and that is the best result because litigants aren't always going to be able to say i know the court's calendar i can get this out in time what misses are unavailable what if they can't that's that's not practical that can't have been what the general assembly intended they can't have intended and not only that the constitution is where it jurisdiction comes from not the statute this  is is there just fish will matter that's the question today yes there is the court couldn't deny me the relief i saw that was the court's discretion the trial court's discretion but it makes no sense whatsoever if there are circumstances beyond somebodies control and not to mention pacts that can arise right before an order is set to expire which is what happened here so when there are facts that arise and i look at the case as the attorney i said you know i think i have  better basis here we need to extend but the language and article six is different from the language of the constitution at the time of people  but and relying on what's let's apply the law correctly they didn't talk about jurisdiction because that's not the issue the issue is whether the court has the power under the statute and i'm not talking power to hear the case i'm i'm talking about how to give the relief saw those are two different issues and lott said yes that they do and if you look at the language of the statute we're talking about the sentence that he says only applies to uncontested motions the motion that i filed was consistent i looked right at the statute when i prepared that motion to extend and i did that for reasons i don't want to have a problem with that makes sense so that we're if that's what that does that does not mean and here's what the legislature would have said if their interpretation is adopted if there is an uncontested hearing or extension know they're so it doesn't make sense that that's the law how can i know it's going to be uncontested until the day i show up that's why you file a motion as i did and it puts the other party on notice they know they this was a contest addition in the brief they argue that lots is different because that was a stipulation of facts whereas here we had a contested hearing me you want to talk about knowing the issues and contested hearing for a couple hours you're going to know the testimony you're going to know the issues that's how you know this isn't a one sentence that was filed initially a stipulation of facts that does not appear on the record this was something that everybody was familiar with so putting the party on notice have we done that yes we did we said that material circuits circumstances are materially the same that puts them on notice what we thought about by sheer we're going to fight about again now the court could have limited me on any additional facts and laws it's important what's extended it on the basis of the original order protection not on any new facts but on the basis of the original one i could have shown up that day and rights rely simply on what happened the first time i didn't have to allege and anything new from my extension based on the statute and based on  so our position is that we did what was required if there was something that was more onerous on the parties meet this would be the problem let's say that it wouldn't bias the motion six weeks in advance they set the hearing the other tourney gets involved they asked for a continuance they could write it out wait till the order expires or hope there's a snow day hope would miss is unavailable doesn't show up now they let the order is fired and they know that now i'm going to file a new the expiration get a continuance write it out and then get a new judge and then we have multiple cases it makes no sense to adopt the laws interpretation that's what makes the most sense for keeping the cases heard where they were judges refer to your honor's to the paper see period of eleven of the record on appeal this order can be extended upon notice filed in the office of the clerk this court in hearing held prior to the expiration of this order and  page four of the order itself that's the first thing i think is important to point out i guess for the record i would object to new arguments that were not raised in the briefs that said obviously your honour's consider w wish in relation then to a couple of counsels argue that i think it's important to point out the let's decision did not base the extension that is the trial court did not base the extension of the plenary order tension in that case solely on the plan a rehearing that was held back in the day if you review was case as i'm sure counsel has the let's court makes absolutely clear that the trial court in that case relied on testimony of a violation of that work and therein granted stanch that the lots court wrote in its decision it could have simply relied on the petition as not saying the same thing as saying that the trial court relied solely on the petition i want to make sure that that's that's clear to petition to revoke that order is not ongoing once the expiration once that probation seedier supervision expires the person is no longer on probation seedier supervision it doesn't keep on going and neither does did jurisdiction is not based on prejudice to a party in addition counsel maintains that there was no order in effect at the time here today to your honor's there is therefore nothing to extend if there is no water in case is that orders are good for two years if you give somebody an order for six months and they file most of her sanction you can give them a year and a half but they're good for two years that's the deadline that's the time frame i think that's the most reasonable interpretation that's in keeping with the everything that side of the council's brief as well as in my brief that said that still doesn't answer the question of one of the orders expired the orders expire and no orders in effect and therefore nothing can be extended again thank you very much i don't know if they want have any questions or anything thank you very much thanks to both of you cases the best court stands in recess and cold recall