you have an opponent i believe so here i don't see him here so he's here right that we're here and we're dealing with two different cases open and part of which go in graphically different correct well do they really go in drastically different directions well the final one the was one of wasn't there a difference all those cases the state use the term waiver they said i think they said that the state waived registered mail service a certified mail service and i think what they're citing there however is not anything a last few years has been making that rather they have gone this distinction when you look at oregon when you look at carver what you're looking at is the state merely being present and doing doctor that's not affirmative act it should case before that they were conscious of what they were trying to do was to make sure that the rules are followed that everybody is not shortchange that if someone is merely standing there that they are not perfect they want to file an answer later if they want to file a motion to dismiss and they're still within that we have here is the state is asking you to assume that judge was somehow fair point she knew that when this was in front of judge panel that there was a waiver and based on people present the people under two fourteen zero one is filed it sets based a procedure in training things are supposed to happen supposed to be a really process where people have opportunities to do things and if they decide to waive them they can waive but silences while the record we had originally record that was provided by the petitioner didn't give us anything besides that hashtag entry we went to venture away and got a record of yes it's an it's a purse conviction matter krantz heard from judge tramway can we please send this to the supplemental call the clerk sat judge walsh the court said judge was asked for a day and the identified state's attorney said we can go to you tomorrow can't we can go to w please which i'm assuming it's in the form of a question but we got it marty wrong i think that shows that we knew and we had actually noticed what was being filed and i think that's good enough certainly under this court's well reasoned opinion oakum which may  notice in this context is sufficient yes he cause as this court rather thoroughly explained in how come the notice that the degree to which you need know this is dependent upon  that was on the second of august it then went to judge walsh i'm she just missed it on september twenty eighth so that's almost two months so i say seven weeks so in that seven week period that satisfie demands of wild card so we had actual notice under oath from which i believe this very correctly reasoned decision and i don't you know i don't think there's any contention that you didn't give actual notice the question is there is a split of authority as to whether actual  reset and that's sad that's what i think and i not only think that the result was correct i think the reasoning was was fofo i consider the purpose of notice under the circumstances it considered exactly who's supposed to be asserted without us which i think is kind of an interesting wrinkle to a case that that my son and pointed out in his brief he said it's ironic that it's very ironic i have trouble figuring out exactly what other context you get almost a conviction and if they had been doing their job which we hope they're doing along with the defense attorney they're actually looking at the document and reading it and i get out what kind of up edition with the way they're different things i think that's what the springboard been telling us in any number of cases in recent years and i think it's important here because in both open and order it was analyzed really both of them should've been analyzed in terms of or proceeding with up or the question like thank you give us a very interesting case of research very good and the arguments are very good and will take the case under advice