not available today but he will listen to the tape and so he will be advised of anything that you have say you know i think today d and i think again though the two major occurrences in illinois supreme court law which show right it's time to reevaluate this case says and one of them is castleberry which makes clear that a statutory requirement is no longer an issue of conviction that led to your registration even if that registration was wrongfully imposed a mere mission before this court is simply whether mr johnson should have had access to an attorney to speak about the arguments and it's mr john said when he's sitting in prison because there's been some sort of violation the registration requirements he was following the black letter of that language now as attorneys you know there's been a lot of process on the language so in fact so much more complicated question that reason and you know this is something where he should just get kicked back and automatic to file but he instead should be permitted to go to the point where you can speak with an tourney about was the right way to frame the aisle ations that you see a that's the right way to think about them what's the right way to which is say what you think went wrong what you think was unfair he correctly identified as clear to me as one of the reasons why he doesn't understand how this all turned out the way it did and he's just getting kicked out already is a technical legal concept without any chance to speak to an he could potentially amend to bring in another conviction i don't know with the legal basis for that would be a human thing if that is even something you can do i've never seen a post fiction that attacks two unrelated peripherally related convictions and still i think that's a question for a trial jury who can do investigation and to know what exactly is clear turning told him read the prosecutor expected when getting a plea that didn't include the complainants age i just think that's a question for someone that can do further factual development we also think the question of standing in a case like this should be decided in the st and sense have to travel with advocates on both sides like a heart i think there is something to be decided with advocates on both sides for the and that's not something that's why friends in section one hundred and twenty two dash two don't whine so i think that's further support for the idea that this is not something the legislature was contemplating ever fired the circuit courts go outside of his role of just looking at the filing on it custody because of failure to adhere to a registration requirement and the conviction that put them there is completely wrong for some reason that you're your response to councils argument that the requirement that you be in the penitentiary isn't a different section of the act that the st state just missile provision petition would never have any would be completely consistent with that purpose years ago one he got i mean it's you know he got convicted of something would you say then it could be i think it's so should not be done in the st case because you have to lead to a subsequent convictions whether he served our federal system somewhere else clearly happening without merit in those cases the score could say there needs to be a clear showing just based on the four corners and the trial record and i think in this case you don't have that because it's a complicated legal situation and because it's