unexpectedly called out of town today she was not able to be here we will hear course hear your arguments and deliberations will follow after justice enough has had an opportunity to review the oral recording of this morning's argument and then any disposition will be issued directly after that so gentlemen if you re ours everyone's case is probably possible to you is being interesting but i do believe there are some interesting legal issues as well as a factual things that need to be addressed in it and that is why we're here so let's get to it first because this review is due no i want to really take some extra time to emphasize to see whether or not you are you have predispositions with respect to some of the arguments i've made in my brief in there so if i could just those we're not going to a question of law i believe this is a question of law but that judge hogan was able to look at the facts in order to make a determination through the legal standard legal standard i believe was outlined in my reply brief turning your attention to the the patent case for zero six l after three d it's a second district case two thousand and ten and the court there said a court should not impose sanctions on a party for failing to conduct an investigation of facts and law when the party present subjectively reasonable arguments for his or her position regardless of whether those arguments are on persuasive or incorrect will that be the case in that l text and when we look at the affidavit i'm sure the adequate time to do so you know it says that in the unless otherwise here now after stated and i'm referring to political address is if anything listed in the pertinent documents in the office of the recorder beads and it goes out of the reference of the documents in cross examination much is made of my clients  to what i said were falsely premised questions that unfortunately i didn't object to i will admit to that i didn't catch the false premise as it was being asked and that false premise was in the transcript it's clear that he was being asked if he visited the address and of course my client has no i didn't visit you dress but you said here and he didn't he didn't understand the false premise i didn't catch it at the time judge to it reasonable to believe that that person that property owner is still living in that address and that any further inquiry is even needed to see if that person is living there were still there when the forwarding address has expired i think that's incredible and i think that that along with whether or not he actually visited when you tie those two together i think the judge should misinterpreted not only the facts in the testimony that was given but the af courts have looked to determine whether or trying to contact the attorney and the courts have looked to determine whether or not somebody exercise due diligence correct correct but in that case that is cited by closing counsel that is in a context where the property we read it that way would you agree that there would be unconstitutional because who would then would not a poor with the concepts of due process and providing notice to owners and the interested parties possibly  and i would answer this way if you know it's presumed that if you're going to own a piece of property you're paying taxes that this is going to go to you correct the accuracy of regular taxes and i believe in the state then the person i'm reading the third precipitation of this then the person making the service shall cause a copy of the notice to be sent by registered or certified mail return receipt requested to that party at his or her residence if ascertainable and i with starting to use the word cheek or the letter g excuse me judged tobin i think just completely misconstrued the actual testimony given on that point may think it's very important  he said that the only way that my client could go down the track was to click some pay services and that was not the testimony that was given at all in fact the testimony as i don't agree says my client previewed all of these things stipulation because i believe the completely irrelevant because it's nowhere near the time period where the actual inquiry occurred it is very easy in this age to see yourself into existence and have all  convincing evidence that if you didn't do it or that the name wasn't there during the relative period of time i think could have been developed i don't know why it wasn't but again it's not my client's burden to prove clear and convincing evidence of fraud believe in reason for the first time appeal that is completely correct they were let's talk first of our standard of review in the standard our own view with respect to the with respect to the sanctions motion which we have brought is it of use of discretion based obviously on a finding that we believe this court will affirm that there was fraud and that incursion of significant expense to retrieve that property into reverse and indicate that fraud on both the court and on mr trask let's turn to this a technical oversight program though the court does not believe that it was a technical oversight as a matter of fact and as a legal conclusion question yes or no i'm sorry it's not the worst of our time do you believe based on the representations in the findings made by the trial court with your script to the one three seven titian did the court understand one thirty seven required penalties on someone who intentionally misleading to the court and cause it party and the court to  time search your other week is very quickly within a matter of months of the time that mr you're down the supposed to look for mr didn't do and judge told him to look definitely listen to the testimony and said i don't believe you i don't believe your story and he didn't say it once he said it three times once in his memorandum decision or perhaps even twice there and twice more on the motion f outrageous and negligent finding if it wasn't such of a finding with respect to my client there apples and oranges your clients conduct perhaps would reduce the amount of sanctions i think i think i think that is standard that is at least one hundred years old in the illinois supreme court has adopted that time and time again and we have a set of circumstances here where there were multiple opportunities clerk's office within still the relevant period of inquiry three six months before the text is issued comes back in my client testified he knew about this and he says forwarding address expired not able to be delivered at that point i property my client visited the property and conducting an internet search which my client did regarding the farmer searching those issues my client is not some mastermind farmer is they would have to believe he's a gentleman in the trial court and it's a sanctions motion from the county of du page with respect to the question of the appropriateness of the imposing sanctions  circumstances this fourth in two thousand and three in a case called hector versus welch said the travelers decision and i'm paraphrasing to deny sanctions on the basis of surely but i also think he knows what he was saying he knows where the world he said he thought about going to the greenbush street address and shows n