whitman good morning let me say at the outset just as clinton is the third person on the panel he is ill and is not able to be here today he will be listening to the tapes of the are human and issue directly but is instead contended that the defendant's petition should be dismissed for the dismissal to be firm because it was not properly served upon the state now this is not a case where there was no service whatsoever but instead the state questions the service because there is no mention within the notice of service and notice of file that the state has thirty days within which to respond the defendant's contention is twofold the first is that this is a technical defect that does not invalidate the service but secondly that even if it is found to be a defect and if service is considered not proper for that this missile under either of the two lines of cases that have addressed this and this is been a topic that has been under serious discussion or i would say the last two years most notably in the second district but also in the fourth district and in the second district you we have the primary case of people being neds which has taken the hardest line i would say in terms of how to treat an instance where there is no service upon the state and what the court in this did documents there is a requirement that he be notified of the effect that this document could handle that's not the case in the instant case and it's typically not the case in criminal cases where we're dealing with the state's attorney's office and certainly the state's attorney's office doesn't need a tutorial from a pro se and as to the proper procedure to be followed or more importantly the impact that a failure to act within thirty days might section or i'm sorry supreme court rule twelve through which governs the service of these petitions has constantly been read by force to accommodate prisoners for instance with the certification by mail when when a prisoner says that he personally mailed something that can never actually be true because of process within prisons for mailing things instead it's the prison authorities that mail the documents and actually see the documents  or within the mail system and courts intended overlook that because they're trying to accommodate the limitations imposed upon presidents and we would ask that this be one of those limitations that or considers as well i would also note even though it wasn't mentioned by the state and it's brutal in in all candor it has to be noted that there was no indication that this petition was served by certified mail with a return receipt so there's no form of proof as there would be with personal service or windsor by mail isn't all so the question then becomes is his regular mail then a violation that this court could consider and it certainly could again though the question does not seem to be here whether there there is mail and there hasn't been a challenge as to whether it was served by regular mail on the state but that certainly could be one reason that the court can there are two lines as to what the proper remedy should be the first was a nun's it did by the second district and people vinas and it said that any sort of technical pleading and well in this in this matter was that these defendants failed to serve the petition in any fashion on this day and the court found that it wasn't appropriate to dismiss it without prejudice what was appropriate to this missive with i'm s were questions about whether the defendant were being diligent in serves two days is not a sufficient period of time to take that matter consideration so largely for that reason we believe that the better reasoned course of opportunity to object to the lack of service or not and would allow the defendant or any effects that might be but again even if that remedy is rejected by this court then th notice of his two fourteen zero one petition at two fourteen zero one fish and where is here of course he gave not notice which the people would submit is it term of art in this case he gave the people the state  was proper in dismissing it within thirty days despite there are no be no answer the court said in its quote the truck court did not have before a proper pleading upon which to grant section two fourteen zero one relief and quote people submit that cases with no notice like nits and cases with less than perfect notice like this case should be handled the same the position is the fish and doesn't comply with the rules it should be properly that it can be properly dismissed within thirty days file their answer requesting that it's dismissed it's important it's largely insignificant as the merits of this case i believe kind of dictate that this is going to be dismissed based on timeless at some point by some party in the future that's all i have if there are any other thank you i think just briefly i would point out that the the question of whether this would be dismissed or timeliness somewhat begs the question of purpose of law harm which was to say that the state should be given the opportunity where justice requires it to be able to waive the time in this concerns certainly they should be able to waive objections as to service here as well and  opportunity to discuss some of the exceptions to the two year period but the fact of the matter is that they have court or any of these reasons to dismiss it less than thirty days following the bible to because it impacts both the state's rights and the untruths and therefore rather than consider this a  prima something that should be dismissed yet it should be in some fashion reinstated so the defendant has an opportunity to properly reside or so that the state has an opportunity to properly object whether on the basis of tim or on the basis of