is telling the court by this essentially don't want anything to do with this i want you to rule on this without my input in this is not a motion to dismiss it's asking the court to take action because it was after they were given thirty and they're considered to be ok so there is a liberal construction so in this case if he has put out you know put into that may all that and do you see on a date within the thirty days and with postage or a church you know was saying that it's only twenty three months saying the postmark is sufficient but this isn't a postmark this isn't an indication that in the time of the thirty days that it is already in the process or in the hands of a third party was it in the hands of the their party postal service obviously that you can make a very good assumption that it's basically proof that in fact it must have gone out at the right time we don't have here for all we know he put this in without the proper postage without any voucher system which is what the regulations require he put into that mi l and that may be why it took five days we don't know that he didn't sit there for two days before somebody tell him it's still sitting there are here it is bad or whatever because it there we get into this whole level of conjecture which is exactly what we can't get in to determine whether a person has done what they need to do and get it filed or file of mine they are in within the thirty days it sounds like you're  days that is addressed correctly so that they actually have a chance of getting there that isn't just you know it was sent to anybody not in the proper party or not at the proper place and have postage that's the way that this can get through so if he said that he had felt sure if he said that he put it in with it in the manner in which you know and they can take the money out of his account and he's honest as a bat that would in a sufficient but it's not just something that can just be left out as something that's not really necessary because if you get to that then you get to the same point he would have without an affidavit or something you get to this conjecture well presumably he put it in because we're dealing with five days and five days isn't that you know that far off the ball you can't have that and that's a scenario based upon working backwards in time from the fact that there was a notice of appeal of the seat by the circuit clerk it came through the mail it came through dio seem male employees and then supposedly was given to them by the defendant so if in fact you're correct that there was some defect there were from what i can tell a forty year scenario actually sent out which means that there should have been assuming that it was done on the same day then there should have been a second affidavit indicating the same day or there should have been a second affidavit indicat the defendant but the reason it's not just because he's done everything he can do at that point before thirty days as a last to do what he needs to do so that it should go through it in timely fashion whether it's delayed normally  pleading it has not ever ever been brought up to there is a jurisdictional problem never raised that we never stood on that we're not standing on the end here for the defendant to turn around the defendant or the you know petitioner has therefore we're not going further with this or it can take a step in the other direction and submit itself to the jurisdiction of court by making what has to be i think i'm going to call it i think the changes two to three of them in two thousand were were meant to do that they were meant to take away the pitfalls that were in the at sea actually where you come in and also make a general you're in for a general appearance when you're trying to argue both and didn't realize you couldn't our people at the same time so at this point the state that account if he does not have enough money in his account then he's assigned proper saying he will reimburse the state for that game if he signs a barter the letter goes out at state expense that's principle that the state should be given notice before the clock starts running on a dismissal or some further action in the case serves to protect the state it's not just a rule that protects