was granted by the court as owners of the corporate mark that are at issue here the civic organization has standing from that perspective this is ownership the question of fair trial played out however originally we were dealing with four vests we are now only dealing with three best because at the forfeiture hearing the state failed to present one of the vests at that time they misplaced it hour decision within the confines of striking a plea deal but however that may be it anybody can give up any one of us can over our interest in the brooklyn delivery commences the fifteen day period and when does seizure happen when deliberate happens and it was discussed two main issues the difference between constructive natural delivery and then when when a clock against a tick so to speak we don't have to concern ourselves with constructive versus actual delivery it's the mchenry county sheriffs that actually seize the property pursuant to search warrants on january thirty first two thousand and thirteen delivery took place th to property forfeited as opposed to return to the owner after the criminal proceedings are terminated the state has particular deadlines with which to initiate the corporate or proceedings it does not mean that those forfeiture proceedings have to be concluded but there has to be notice at some level that there is an intent to seize and forfeit the purpose of article thirty six is to create a needs by which the instrument of the crime is somehow no longer available to a criminal suspect in a dui we take away the vehicle there isn't a dui and the illegal sale of firearms take away a person's drugs they're not going to be able to legally sell firearms in this case we have gay activists we have a physical assault in a bar how does removing the best in any way alleviate the underlying alleged criminal activity and ask you the question is the full year with respect to the vets or with respect to the patch for our concern we're only concerned about the patches the best do belong to the criminal defendants between the state in the fence necessitates that the defendant is a myth that the vast somehow facilitated any gains heavy yes your honor reputation plays a large role and in my limited experience with client my client is like a microcosm of the signy there was good there was bad there was ugly but a lot of the it i mean there is a history in that as with anything but there is really this popular culture i want to use this with the word myth that promulgated it creates this image that we have to see that reality t v we see in movies but in essence each member stands alone they are an individual whose actions are judged the entire purpose of taking these vests is taking away the indicia taking away the the mark that identifies themselves and we did with the rationale of the bas subtle club in this particular instance it's not by any means a who will that they have to wear them at any time it is a choice like anything else and i don't believe any every member there  necessarily wearing a vest but and as a free member you know a society here in the united states if they wish to represent their affiliation with more than the zation that's a free speech protection that they have we have actually see this discussed to some degree in a i believe it's a rivera versus courier where you have a very similar situation where in basis of that it's not if this patch was used illegally if there is a factual finding that think we're used illegally then people versus to say this that it doesn't matter stretch i know the state is attempting to focus its argument on the word facilitate to make it easier but this is also simply a conclusion without anything in the record substantiate it in the end there is no criminal ation should no nexus has been shown this is an attempt to circumvent the the first amendment rights its members all its neighbors don't need to be law abiding citizens that he did it that expression first amendment speech is somehow not palatable to everybody it's still protected and in this case the for the legislation that was passed requiring it to be within a certain period of time right civil when you're talking about items of property that have significant monetary value like a car they're going to be people or might not even be the people who are charged in the criminal proceedings who have an interest in that car however when you are perceiving things pursue to a search more and there is also a possibility that you are depriving people of the state can take as long as it is to decide if it wants to begin where future proceedings and then somehow once it makes that decision it then has sixty days no i think that one of the articles are already in the possession of the st the length of the criminal proceedings plus sixty days this is also a very important very distinct area forfeiture laws that i think is important when you consider th had pled guilty and they also thought that you know there were other members of the street they had previous convictions as well but the conventions in contraband forfeiture is a much more important that isn't your typical forfeiture the fact that you know they were when this testimony that set the mood in the bar changed everybody got a good boy they didn't change because of the hatches or just by the sheer number the maximum amount of time that the state passed is it a situation where they've properly seized pursuant to a search warrant and then they decide to initiate forfeiture proceedings is the way to the criminal proceedings or her distinction understood and that's why not my question to you how do you review that distinction that she is making that case is not really an hour just because it's just as she said it was being it i ey months after the point delivery while two months after the point of the criminal disposition it is wholly arbitrary it's lottie's in the face of the will of the the language in the statute and certainly  that's not to say that the forfeiture proceedings have to be within a certain date they just have to be initiated they can be entered into continued in conjunction with the criminal case if there is a question of whether or not something's contraband that is going to that those who are committing the game typically have multiple felony convictions with a certain period of time none of this was established the issue of whether or now there are games here that is nothing in the record but as really before this court at this time whether or not anybody here you know if they wanted to somehow may affect the patches that gets into trademark issues which is really not before this court but if i could simply finish my thought very quickly that the idea of getting