sex offender registration act was unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs even writing purportedly based on a violation of the th amendment and the proportion of penalties plus such a claim however must fail because the only supreme court a court may not find that i statute is unconstitutional as applied to an individual without st making findings of fact which requires an evidentiary hearing moreover neither order complied with all is not punishments as recently as two thousand and thirteen and people versus cardona the supreme court held that sora is not punishment and instead it is a regulatory scheme designed to foster public safety  previously analyzed the as applied constitutional challenge brought by those defendants yes that is that is correct right correct aren't you saying that that this case the problem as there was nothing under types of tones is brought under the th amendment force and penalties clause appear to be foreclosed by the on a supreme court that aside should this court decide that mr crighton should be allowed to proceed with an as applied constitutional challenge in this case this court showed they caved in june and september orders and remain and the matter back to the circuit court for further proceedings as you explained because there was no evidence here he evidence here hearing and the circuit court admitted no documents and evidence upon which you could make  the possibility have someone indicating under their circumstances this becomes unconstitutional isn't that correct i believe your honor you are correct that there is no specific olding stating that this type of challenge could not be brought in this particular instance by this individual argument however as we argue below so the circuit court and as we mentioned in our opening brief here because the only nice supreme court several times and as recently as two thousand and thirteen has held that the my sex offender registration act does not constitute punishment that would appear to support closed the ability for an individual to bring in as applied constitute constitutional challenge under those provisions again however as as you claim should this court decide otherwise and determine that such a challenge could proceed in the circuit court it would require an evidentiary hearing in the circuit circuit court to allow the circuit court to hold a hearing entertain evidence so that it could then make a finding of that because my it's my understanding and correct me if i'm wrong that the on as applied to the situation but did have would have to be dependent on the unique circumstances of that individual case from a constitutional standpoint and has to be broad would back the ability to challenge us or a registration requirement in conjunction with the criminal appeal that's not a possibility so that is correct and then i think the distinction is again as we stated below in our in our opening brief it appears based on the on a supreme court ruling that the sex offender registration act in illinois does not no i was going to say the but however should the score disagree and feel that that is an appropriate yankel ordered into vidual to challenge their placement on the registry that as your honor stated that would require challenge the registration in illinois i mean here we have a guy twenty years ago who was who was briefly under a year in illinois and hasn't been any problems and those state department prevents him from seeing his family and in thailand because of the registration in one state a state where he has little contact the other two states that there is not a restriction at this point is register in louisiana it is unclear whether he is still required to register and florida i believe if you go on to the florida sex offender registration website there is somebody with crighton name who still shows up and it shows that there was a louisiana conviction it was the underlying conviction so he may still have to be registered in florida again i it's hard to say for certain based on the back there was no evidentiary hearing but so he does appear at least possibly to still be needing to register and florida as well as illinois and then to answer your st question i don't believe that the argument in this case goes as broad as saying that an individual may never be able to bring in as applied constitutional challenge to be removed from the sex offender registry it's simply based illinois that's been him no no not not a case that's been ruled on which is a factual example of the state's position where a person could possibly challenge their registration status as a surprise situation if you say you're not foreclosing everything more what's what under your view what i think to the extent that there may be another just i'm getting confused which often happens as i read your briefs your prayer for relief just requests reimburse saw and three man for new what what's the remedy you want for us to apply so certainly should this court hold that mr crighton cannot proceed with this type of constitutional challenge  and the relief would be that defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition should have been granted in which case that decision should be reversed by the circuit court however should the court decide that mr crighton can proceed with this type of as applied constitutional challenge then making sure would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the circuit courts to allow them to allow the circuit court to proceed with an evidentiary hearing so you believe that we have to reach the issue of whether so or is or is not punishment in this appeal is that your position i do not believe that the court has to reach that decision has reached that issue here because based on the fact that the supreme  remand back to the circuit court and then again perhaps defendants could raise again the question of whether mr crighton may proceed under the constitutional of this way and as a with an a yes and i do believe that the supreme court's holding in being leaves open i civil action a separate civil action outside of an appeal based on the criminal conviction since his arrest happening  here yes but again this challenger this petition was brought and as a constitution as applied constitutional challenge alleging violations of mr crane's th amendment rights as well as the proportionate penalty  and given that both of those provisions require some kind of punishment from the state because the only supreme court has held that the star statute does not constitute punishment that and that that would mean that a challenge alleging that the statute violates those constitutional clauses would perhaps not would not be allowed but again as stated should the support disagree and find otherwise and that court that those a person should be allowed to proceed under those constitutional provisions and the very least hearing with those and humans being presented to the trial court because the landscape has changed in terms of the case law well i understand that and i believe this court would h as i understand it he's prohibited from reentering this country at this time we're is he now he is in the in a field near he's out in a remote area of southeast asia a centrally homeless as i understand it he's in reason behind no evidence and no sworn testimony because we couldn't get a client present yes yes yes i don't it's it's the government preventing him from coming to a government you're in i don't know on i don't think would be very easy to accomplish under you know under the i guess rules of the race rules but i appreciate your answer very much with these oral arguments and get a chance to drill you a little bit and occasionally as in this situation i learn something new from you so thanks as i understand it the state department prevented him from getting into thailand what happened was  understanding as he returned he went to jamaica for about six months and from there he was able to get somehow to cambodia how he got there i do not know part of the reason i don't know is because it's difficult to communicate with them but he  very little contact with the state of illinois if we learn in law school regarding so will the jurisdiction minimum contacts nearly twenty years ago the system has remained world wide effect upon him we believe that the proceedings in the trial court were conducted correctly they were conducted given all that limitations that were present the trial some of these challenges were not raised in the trial court by the state  well that's ok there proceedings in florida as well that are similar to my understanding as florida had a ten year requirement he was considered a sex offender not a runner and i believe when i've been advised along the way even though his name apparently there are those that's not holding him back that's fine you know well thank you below in response to the amended operative petition the amended edition defendant's move to dismiss that petition but i don't believe that means that it's uncontested that there was there were any factual or any allegations made in the petition that we were admitting to or not contesting and instead this is christmas proceeded below a motion to dismiss and as we noted in our brief below and is reflected in the record when this matter was before the circuit court we did ask for an evidentiary hearing to provide some answers and to provide some more facts on which the circuit court could make its decision one thing that you didn't mention below and that also was raised in our brief is the question of who why what it fact if any the illinois registration had on mr creighton's ability to be enter thailand the letter from the department of homeland security to the tile and immigration officials did not mention the own i registry it did not mention the term sex predator it simply stated that he was a sex offender based on his on the underlying conviction in louisiana so to the extent that there may be any effect or no if he's no effect on the only registry enter thailand that is something that requires some evidence and some factual development in order for the court to further analyze  issue i don't believe defendants were required to file a motion to reconsider after seeing the court's order and so it was raised properly here before the court on appeal can i ask again  have you given your view in the st part of your argument what would be an example of a way that anyone could raise a as applied constitutional challenge u nder the sex registration act in illinois how could that happen again if there were i think you know to the extent that there was some other constitutional provision upon which the individual was based saying it's as applied his or her as applied constitutional challenge is simply here though because the o constitutional amendment or some other portion of the story statute itself that requires weaves ammunition that may be a different case would under the pleadings from lee plaintiff here it would appear that there are raising an adverse impact on this person because of the rich stray ssion that's what their pleadings just their right and adverse impact yes that note however actually the pleading relevant pleading in this case i don't believe even states that there's a belief is that there is an allegation that mr crighton was not allowed into thailand because of its placement on the sex offender registration act on the illinois sex offender registry it simply states that the department of homeland security stat time and immigration officials the notification which again makes no reference to the old i registry and then he was not allowed into thailand and so again at the very least additional evidence and discovery would be needed in order to chairman what impact if any the on my registry had on that illinois where would he be would pick up the fact that twenty years ago he had a conviction if there's no longer registry after indicating so perhaps if illinois was the only registry that he was on but again it's actually not clear from this record whether that's true i understand mr sullivan states his understanding is he's no longer required to register in florida but again doing a search on the florida florida retched does show him as i don't being registered so that would be another area that there would be required some factual development to determine whether or not the florida registry had anything to do with the payment of homeland security's decision to send the letter as this record stands right now there are no mindful of the fact that this was decided in two thousand and eighteen and i'm wondering do we know whether the decision by judge gorman was used to eliminate the restriction and mr crighton do we even have that historical mean they've had two years to use that decision do do we know an