the failure to preserve the defense and then i'll move on to the stipulation in the end auditions whether or not the stipulation preserve the defense in this case turns on whether or not the suppression motion that was litigated in the case was frivolous and that's because trying to preserve this particular suppression motion was the functional equivalent of not now enjoying a defense at all to put it another way had this been the only issue on the record it's my belief that i would not be optically allowed to raise that issue in this court that's how horrible this it was and that's for two reasons the first has to do with a misunderstanding i think both in terms of was that the state being the signal into mr brand's home in order to determine the contents of his computer but there was putting the search warrant application which counsel would have had access to before filing the motion is very well developed and the question of how these networks operate what actually happened in this case was that brings allegedly being the signal from his computer to a third party understood how these how these transfers work additionally the fourth amendment standards that apply to this kind of flow of information the personal information are well established in the service require someone to pass on information to the service provider there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information in peer peer cases not only does the service require passing on information but the entire point of that transfer is what allegedly happened here which is the further transfer that information on to another end user in order to connect that end user with the original that user who is sharing the thing that the files it's true that there are no where the site i certainly could not find any cases involving human peer networks in illinois however the end of the analysis is a foregone conclusion here and it has it has to do with reasonable expectations of privacy and there simply cannot be a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sharing economy of peer to peer networks but there's an easier reason to conclude that the motion was  and that's because there are there's another fact that came out during the proceedings with a nasty gating officer who was monitoring network traffic over the spirit your network allegedly saw the brands computer were these the ikea address that was there is no there are no circumstances in which mr brant could get out or should have won reality of what's happening in that in these cases there has to be a line beyond which i counsel strategy is so frivolous that there is no defense that's being preserved and where that line is it's it's our belief that it was crossed in this case lack of a defense the record demonstrates an agreement as to mr brand's goals the state called it a stipulated finding him guilty the defense agreed that the stipulation would quote meet the criteria stipulation took for granted that the core of the process was mr brand's except in criminal liability so for example while his son on the one hand well while kills the son on the one hand that this was not a guilty plea he then turned around well it was practically a guilty plea and it was throwing brand throwing himself at the mercy of the court it it seems obvious from the record the parties at least entertaining no doubt that is running was privy to the negotiations in the case and it seems to indicate that stated self believed that the time that this was tantamount were guilty plea the bottom line here is that when grant agreed to the stipulation the result was a given he was practically speaking pleading guilty he got none of the benefits of that stipulated bench trial procedure but neither did he get the full protections of the gold simply procedure of the the offenses was a reference to the indictment and it's not that the indictment was invalid were not challenging the sufficiency of the indictment i don't think that we win that argument i think and i agree with the state that brings is protected from double jeopardy the white i personally believe that that's because he can point to the entire record should that ever become an issue the what we're arguing is that on the face of the indictment the face of the indictment is confusing it's contradictory and brain can look at the face of the indictment to get a clearer picture of the nature of the offenses involved so unless there are any questions  that there do not appear to be any cases in illinois of ballots i stipulated on trials in which the defense that's being attempting to be preserved is is manifestly frivolous is a matter first impression i do i think that it's that the better analysis is that when we when we look at what's actually happening at the ins eases and the protections and the reason that the protections that are in place in the reasons that we have these procedures i case such as this where the defense that's being presented is is in fact not a legal defense is it is different from a situation in which the defense is weak on the facts or more in question in terms of the law there is no question here this was not a defense to these charges  preserve defense is an affirmative defense that was raised in order to conference my reading of voice is that that affirmative defense was what the defendant was referring to in his post trial motion raising the sufficien explicit attempt to preserve some some species of reasonable doubt that's not what we have in this case in this case we have a presentation of what purports to be a defense but barred from raising that about the facts in terms of the strength of the evidence and whether or not mr brandt will would be found guilty regardless the case treat this error as a substantial error under the second prong plain error and so you know we could we could speculate as to what the outcome will be should this be reverse what my position would be would echo your honest question which is that this is this is a very serious procedure that needs to be taken seriously and ultimately  mr brant our position is that he essentially pled guilty without knowing that he was pleading guilty and we don't allow those sort of those sort of judgments to stand in our in our justice system argument but i think that if you look at the the entirety of the raggedy particularly what the part inside during the stipulated bench trial and just after the stipulated bench trial that i believe that you'll find that my interpretation of those words is the better interpretation thank you thank you and in terms of the sentencing issue again the indictment the reason i brought up the indictment in the briefs is because the indictment was the only reference to what the charges were during the proceedings so the question is i th