individuals such as sovereign citizens people who consider themselves outside of the bounds of our laws people who consider themselves to be a very independent legal stance they were also concerned about people using a means is not recognized as legitimate by any court in illinois the united states so that meant to reflect that they were talking about people who were intentionally and believe me disregarding the wall and i think th continual some of those activities and that was one of them and my areas of course that mr schneider's conduct here falls outside of what the legislature was trying to prescribe it didn't he didn't he done this a lot the flu or something theory that would be all respectfully i don't think it matters one way or the other whether it's only referring to federal courts or whether it's referring to other states because the state in this case didn't put on any evidence whatsoever how these are treated in the united states court so for mr schneider's purposes i don't believe it matters but i suppose to answer your question more directly i think you may see these courts mean federal courts is probably a more reasonable interpretation but the statute itself is not well worded i guess to put it you know but it would be somewhat name thinking what they have done in the other state was appropriate that it seemed like something the legislature wasn't trying to prescribe ok your point there but in this case in particular the state didn't criminal as it sets out to criminalize people who are intentionally disregarding illinois and united states law and filing liens against government officials or they're acting as if they are not bound by the laws of this record and vacate his conviction because mr bush and his conduct here didn't rise to the mental state that's required by the act and the mental state beds indicated by the legislatures debate about the attorney a week after he presented that lien for filing that instead of those documents show that his real theory of when had to do with a government conspiracy on and i believe that's a better source of  overturned he knew that the sheriff couldn't get to him from the property his he knew he was no longer living on the money he knew that he was not paying taxes on them in the twenty years that had passed between the twenty three years between the  addiction and the foreclosure and the filing of the stream and him so he knew that he based on those facts the foreclosure judgment extinguished his property rights at least according he testified according to the courts now he can use those courts of corruption and he argued that the that that judgment was wrongly entered but he knew that the judgment had been entered and it was the defendant's knowledge not his belief that was at issue sovereign citizens filing false leads based on their political beliefs i think that shows that the legislature intended to cover people who believed in what they were doing but who nonetheless knew that on th he testified that he performed research before he ahd filed this documentary attempting to file the document again is good faith belief is irrelevant but i also want to say that even if the jury credited his testimony that he had done that he didn't testify that he have questions about and if this isn't a valid means of attacking the foreclosure judgment that is by mr schneider's in front of you then it would be pretty trivial to put someone on who is an expert in property well i can say no this is never a reason  file in for this but the state didn't do that and i don't think that's beyond the pale that the statute is asking for because there are plenty of other types of cases where you're going to need an expert to satisfy one of the elements and especially in something like my property which is at least for me one way over my head it's something that would be required to have someone say here are the ways in which you can finally it's here are the ways in which sought people talk to including the state's attorney's office who simply ignored him rather than communicate with him in any way and then brings me back to what this statute is targeted at it's not targeted at people who are trying to do something they think is proper but are mistaken because that would mean in time the filing and you're mistaken about what he intended to dead you've committed a criminal act and that brings me to the