court because they disclosed federal felony convictions but they did not allege that they had followed the act by applying getting a denial appealing the denial to the director hearing for an l j and then if i'm satisfied with that result seeking that ministry and the fact that they had federal felony convictions but were not filing a complaint for administrative review should have alerted the court to the fact that they did not belong there at the very least  review had been completed or whether in the district rudy's were exhausted he seemed to assume that they were rightfully there and in all fairness your honour's as state's attorney is likely not familiar with administrative review so the prosecutor may have not picked up on that procedural defect representing those situation the candidates if they represent the county state's attorney at that point it's you know so not the state police not the state police they're not representing the state police i don't think it even occurred to attorney that he would be expected to represent the state police interest in this matter so he said to those situations i've looked out the process i look at the process often if they if they think that there is some question they move to intervene and generally the intervention motions are granted but no they are not they are not required to be notified in this situation they shouldn't the more should have been there in the first place they should have gone to the director and have they done so and not been satisfied with that result they would have had to file a complaint for administrative review director would have been named as a party and they would we wouldn't be here on any question of intervention notification because the case would have gone as it was supposed to do the circuit about three three and a half months probably from the time that they got the order which was certainly timely under you know under intervention case law that is now under excessive amount of time that was a reasonable amount of time why because it too the trial or was under that statute required to consider basically three times whether or not the application was timely whether or not the interests of the parties so were substantially similar applied and basically applied the wrong subsection of the courtesy procedure here the trucker never got to that point never applied any of these factors never made any factual findings on that point and so you know the court and i think motion so i think it's very clear from the record in that as the sugar seven transcript pages nine ten eleven it's a court proceeding under the wrong subsection of the intervention stretch in a bit did go back to these but i thought your argument was that your motion to intervene was based on two deaths for two no war and that you had two years if it's considered to dash what you know in there or it would be timely if it's final but that apparently is not your well this is the case these are to cases are fairly interesting because there are there are internet there are cases to intervene just a just a petition for relief from judgment and again it proceeded now i don't i don't think it's very clean to do it that way i think it's cleaner to intervene and then file your motion for relief from judgment but it's that's what made research in this case tickle lot more than four and a half hours because trying to figure out how all pieces fit together wasn't easy  so getting back to my question you're not arguing tininess based on the intervention being brought to disport you know we we sought to intervene in order to be able it seems that what you are you have two years for it to fourteen one but that's that's not quite what happened ok whatever the the department got the order filed a motion to intervene exception was the state's attorney notified was there no forcible felony in twenty years but the circumstances what were the circumstances of the prior conviction was the reputation of the individuals involved such that it was not likely to peter and was there no contrary there was not country public interest to grant the petition to the state the second requires the judge to consider the three factors that we're talking it's and if you don't meet those factors then you don't get to intervene ok but you have to ask yourself ok adequate representation as to and sets we want you to add a separate element to this statute which does not exist and that is if you have a felony conviction you can get maybe distracted by the arguments made by the parties or if there was a lot of attention given to what the notice requirement was on the statute and it seemed that the argument in the court comments tended to blur the distinction between the notice requirement of the statute that being of the oid statute and the two for a weight requirements that we were talking about earlier the three  particular items that the court is consider tigellinus adequacy of representation and whether or not an interest is being adversely affected when the trial court issued its ruling here and i'm just reading from a transcript the legislature only said that the state's attorney shall be notified of proceedings such as this if that's a deal with my state police did not say notify the attorney general and went on to say i think the legislature has made the determination as to how the interests of the people are being protected in a case like this and so on that basis i will deny the motion to intervene the truck or just use the wrong standard in judging and determining the motion  was filed by the attorney general there is nothing here that sat's that you may appeal this to the director there is nothing that says this is which is part of the record it shows an arrest for burglary and then during the hearing the state's attorney asked him about it and that he said you know looks like it was bargained down to something like a misdemeanor theft is that right so as far as we know and i'm sure he would know better than i  by a ministerial officer and you know if the government couldn't correct something like that it would be hopeless basically have to tolerate violations of the law in perpetuity and ricky himself did not believe that the burglary this is a problem he did not reference a burglary in his petition in state court your honour's he referenced only a federal felony conviction so you know he didn't do what he did based on the letter of the guy with respect to  and what corn did is applies to this case it clarified something that the poker in highland held seven years earlier which is the fact that you may be federally disqualified from possessing a gun does not per se need that you may not get a  one other point i'd like to add your honor there is no time limit on appeals to the director so you know if everything would work out the way the state police would like it to this case if we you know if this if there were reversal if two for two no one really for granted if we went back to square one the statute doesn't have a time and so the morses are not harmed by their teacher or a circuit court they can go back and appeal to the director and have a hearing get a ministry to appeal to the secret secret ministry review in the circuit court appeal to this court courts are empowered to reverse the directive decision it's based on it you know it's been made it's an abuse of discretion courts have not