receptive to the trial court but for the truck or to sustain the admission it must be to either the clause or witnesses but for my purposes i have to show you again here today that the clause fails and but we present that to humans who facets one it's still the law allows you to if you feel compelled that in the interest of justifying your favor but i think it also shows the degree to which the attestation was fails making inquiries through essentially cross examination or worse imitation of a possible hostile witness that their belief isn't as strong as the different areas believe because foundation for the person's belief those are different questions but that's if you have to addition postville i believe it goes so i don't think to the best of our knowledge is the same as belief and so once you get past that one should say look we don't owe any difference to the  give fails because you don't have two witnesses now these three cases of import the executor sites in connection with with this is providing sufficient you'll have an opportunity to make illinois the st would be a very informal proceeding if there is an adaptation clause in a will that is in due form an attorney or whoever it might be goes to the probate court you don't have to notify anybody and you ask the court to admit the will to probate because there are at a station clause in due form within a certain number of days there people get notified and interested parties can ask for a formal case law standing over the course of one hundred and fifty years were children trusting witnesses say it i don't know that that looks like my signature but i don't remember being there i'm not sure there could be my signature maybe it does maybe it's not in those cases there have been other witnesses that have been brought in or maybe it's not about the signature but in a lot of cases it's a belt the sound mind memory requirement under six hundred and forty eight and other witnesses including medical professionals in some cases i've seen twelve other witnesses in addition to the attesting witnesses and even though the two attesting witnesses could not and would not positively state the provision or the requirements under six or eight the other twelve witnesses were the testimony that they provided made sufficient evidence and the will was admitted council also doesn't address the legislative intent of the probate act and when the court is construing a statute that is paramount we need to look at the legislative intent of the act and there's no need to try to ascertain what that might be the expeditiously administered to that doesn't take away from and that is why there is a mandatory it's a mandate to literally construe the terms of the  that doesn't take away from the ability of interested parties to come in and say hey look we're going to contest the validity of the will and that happens when there's a will contest that is not what happens at the stage where the with well is it needed to probate the requirement that there be a liberal construction and why case after case over the stand of one hundred and fifty years from eight hundred and sixty six through the present it would depend on what context you are this context it rises and falls on the four corners how can i have proof of why i just have information without a conclusion or something i draw and stated and as counsel pointed out the phrase that issue was to the best of one's knowledge and belief but the court stated that the am to believe portion in that term was surplus it and that knowledge saying to the best of one's knowledge because the belief fortune or surplusage is needed was stronger conviction and affirmation than on information and belief and i think that that's the common knowledge that we do knowledge or to the best of my belief i don't think it's a question you just said if i say i know that's greater than belief with this as a test station was did not say i know it said to the best of my knowledge doesn't that a lesser standard in this case it does not matter why because the courts have stated you don't even have to say anything about sound mind and memory in your testimony at all how that proof is going to be made so if you have been at a station closets in due form the method of how you're going to prove the elements how did her earth the requirements under six or eight become a illinois supreme court cases case after case where they are talking about the testimony of witnesses with regard to their belief of sound mind and memory it was sufficient for a testing witness to state well i don't see anything you know differently about him than anybody else that was deficient and there have been cases where the direct question of do you believe did you believe him to be of sound mind  memory at the time that the will was attested to and the attesting witnessed it stated no and the court came back and said well look i understand that you you stated no to that direct question but in the rest of your testimony required is very low they do not have to state anything as i stated with regard to the mind or memory of the test either at the time court has stated on multiple occasions that very very few wills would be admitted to probate if we were to require that there is no requirement that you know the  way for the attesting witness to have any information with regard to the sound mind and memory of the testy there is often times what you see at the court has stated that that is sufficient stating that there was nothing out of the ordinary there was no indication to the testing witness that he wasn't of sound mind and memory that was sufficient to meet that burden under six  the will was still properly admitted as i stated earlier under such and six hundred and twenty one dollars of the probate out where there is a formal proof of hearing other evidence can be brought in so you can look at the adaptation process on as a whole the testimony of the witnesses and any other evidence that's presented in this case both of the attac best of my knowledge when doing a verification he's different you know a fact because it doesn't take that fact out of proof here when someone says i believe this to be true in an active fish and i think i would say this to you your honor in a case where those words were presented i think i'd have to go look and see how the lower courts the law dictionary as  the expeditious nature of entering wills and proving it should be expeditious you can be expeditious if the very simple requirements of the by the notary a guy presumably a listers fraud or forgery we don't get to a lack of judgment and i will simply point out the trial court's observation that it would have been very helpful given the facts and circumstances of this case of these witnesses