this argument flies in the face of three illinois supreme court post conviction decisions expressly stating that such workers report the most recent of those three decisions having come down as recently as three health and it also contradicts generally a legion of illinois supreme authority an order is void and as the almost supreme court said of people first thompson quote it is a well settled principle that for you to order me to attack at any time for any or either directly or collateral probably before the court section two fourteen no one is the proper mechanism for challenging word order such as this one and the two year statue of limitation that normally applies does not apply to void workers both of these rules are held by the owner supreme court and people did you need to get to the to your hurdle right and we are familiar with the there's some raft of case law that says that if for instance in a civil case someone has never been served with process and directly challenged it that way but yeah in light of it when i case law i'll be unanimous in the illinois supreme court precedent it's actually perfectly appropriate to file its reports you know one fishing in the criminal context this was a criminal context attacking the forty simply on oil on the sports column to follow and respect those orders but but wouldn't we be the first course if we if we were to rule your fate would we be the first court to hold that you can forget the two y difference they're both nothing is it not true and i think one is an error and the other one is nothing but so you know but i issue except the fact it was a boy now you just said are two things that are nothing  the supreme court doesn't think the way you think they say that certain things are boy if they violate statures so what i'm saying it was a for thing violence or c s u and it is void we're not talking about what type of thing  if it is void has it made any difference why it's avoid on the issue of whether it is a nothing i suppose not ok so so the only question we hear that is if this is because if it is boy it isn't nothing as  ok my opponent's argument is this is that there are cases that say if a stat if a court does something that's not authorized by a statute the order is void my argument is that the supreme court in davis said that  n i'd say the books isn't that different from a whole lot of other cases that say that and that statement is based on a relic of pre one thousand nine hundred sixty four constitutional law in the united states that if a court lacks an inherent authority to do something it's it didn't have that the order was void now that stephen assumes that the court didn't have jurisdiction to enter it is a supreme court has said in steinke pressure that this concept of having a court have an inherent authority that it has to look to a statue in order to have jurisdiction is out no it doesn't exist anymore the circuit courts have general jurisdiction kind of the question this is all of toyota where they tried to clean up the whole concept of jurisdiction that they said if they can better toyota did they talk about the fact about how the mistake of this of course having to look at the statutes for their jurisdiction is  so i i say i don't know the answer to that question even if you're saying that's true i suppose it is i mean the problem there is we see in the cases that davis sets out the groundwork for where this case heads which is where i only orders that lecturer stiction our boy i don't think that you have other supreme court cases that stand in the way of this you have steinbrunner and you have bellville toyota they clear up the jurisdictional question in exclude the idea that a court has to have some inherent authority or has to look to a statute to do what it does or jim sorry to have the power to enter into work so if void orders only