on that day that there moshing to intervene was to be heard their attorney who by the way had never entered an appearance on their behalf stepped up to the court said i can't represent these people i also sad that there had been any quit claim deed made to the real estate in which they lived without their knowledge or consent he then said i but i can't represent any of the financier iron as he leaves to withdraw a by the way the project is don't mind if you hold them in the fall so on the very day that they were given leave to appear in the case and given twenty eight days within which to take some action on their behalf in their defense they were held in the fall there was no motion for default pending there was no motion for default ever final in the case and they were foreclosed of all rights under very same day that they were given leave to get involved in a case that had to do with their home the order of foreclosure a sale which was entered that same day had so many errors and false statements in it are almost here agreed to let them be held in the fall had absolutely no authority and no ability to take that action on their be here the rules of professional conduct been forced to that not yet every time in every instance the court said well hey look your attorney agreed to the default against you that's all or is there's nothing to that's  it's a violation of due process it is clearly contrary to the rules and in in the most recent pronouncement but the illinois supreme court  it said when you consider of motion to vacated the fall the situation such as this the overriding consideration is whether or not a substantial justice is being done between  that reasonable to compel the bank to prove up the things that it's alleging here mainly that it has some right to seek to get this property in essence because the  had no standing whatsoever to enter into any kind of an agreement on behalf of people he had no right to represent and that's the issue here because the the the order entered by the courts and the four years of this deed that's not much in the way arrested because they never got any of their money they never knew about it in never had anything to do with their transactions so mr mr basham not only said hold them in the fall used to be the protectors morris is one of the people that broke the deed that we claim is forged also were prior attorneys who are mr and mrs production i don't think at that stage of the proceeding when they're just planning out that there's something going on here now that would be reasonable to say they ought to be on notice of something anything when these are the people that are doing all this stuff that gets them into this mess of the people that had been the support that was that was provided to the court it seems to me that it's a very basic violation of due process not to hold a hearing to find out what in fact went on and what the actual facts sentences from the transcript of that day you know i think it's very clear what was going on here mr mashaal said the court so mr mrs redacted asked me to intervene so that it could be determined if they have a right or redemption there's no case all there's no facts in evidence there's nothing that's ever been put in this record that shows he didn't have the authority not a single thing i mean we have to assume that they did retain his counsel they trusted him with the authority to act on their behalf he acted on their  there's a hearing in six months and he still represents a while but it was all simultaneous so i mean it was all the same hey it wasn't like up on her he had a leg to stand that meant that and that's my question how it is so here it happened and a half an hour period or whatever there because there is i understand that and again that's why we need to hear it but she thought of all we're doing is getting leave to intervene so that then we can then respond to this complaint that's all it this motion for default wasn't to be heard that day she had no reason to believe she should be the one point seven rule one point seven of the in my rules of professional conduct says a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a current conflict of interest the court and bring to the attention to the court then this so called agreement with the boy because the person who made it under the have had no authority and as a matter of war was prohibited from making that requirements are and that he knows that the lawyers and not by his client once he says he has a conflict how can the court say you are bound by what somebody says who is he knows or should know cannot represent that part in these rules are there for a reason and the reason is that people who have a special relationship t brought in a timely manner in a proper manner and there is no excuse for not at least having a hearing to flesh these things out and find out what in fact are the true fact about the fall he was asked do you object to mr besh on withdrawing he said no he did not say anything affirmatively one way or the other about the default maybe you didn't know but that's the whole point that's why when you hear it