i'd like to deal mostly with issue four which is the issue involving chronicle hearing and then i also have some comments on issue number one which is the constitutional issue let me deal with the crank  maybe three broad categories one is where the defendant just claims broadly i was deprived of ineffective assistance the second is where the defendant makes a very specific claim which just on the face of it can be addressed without in crete either of the defendant or of counsel and some of the crime to germany re ram they were in that  assistance but not a great deal of detail or not sufficient detail to address that point without inquiry either of the defendant or of counsel now jeremy ram wrote a very elaborate bad claims so possibly good points and sometimes maybe that we really can't tell because there's not enough detail in the actual motion let me just say first of all that the trial  was certainly entitled to address some of these claims for example the claim that the attorney was sleeping during the trial without making an inquiry because she said she watched the trial if she didn't think it was true then no one crew was needed or however there were other planes where some inquiry was needed and there were actually quite a number of them one of the plans were in korea i think  obviously needed was claim six which was the failure council's spin their trial or call the witnesses jason parrish william aman john litchfield so others you claiming that there's some witnesses that could have helped him but you didn't say what they would have said now at that point i think some inquiry of the defendant as to what the witnesses would have said was obviously required maybe following that inquiry of counsel as to whether the council was aware of witnesses  contains possible impeachment so one inquiry of the defendant might have been number one were you there at the opi hearing to you having any idea what she said the hopi o p hearing it why do you think it would be helpful and but again no increase was made there is also other claims such as the claim that there was a failure at the one fifteen seven point four hearing  where counsel didn't respond in writing i didn't move for reconsideration even though one of the points that the judge brought up was that he had was not aware that germany around and undergone a course of rehabilitation between should have been appointed to investigate some of these claims he should have gotten a point you know as i say if the case goes back i'm going to be the counsel i mean maybe something will happen in between but i can't imagine what it so meaningful inquiry was not conducted and that's why the case needs to be remanded on those grounds for a new entry a new crime here now let me go then to my issue number one although i don't doubt would it be protection claim and the first district has denied it technically however this specific argument i made was not addressed in the das case and it was not addressed in the  think this court is free particularly because there is no bindings illinois supreme court precedent on the equal protection claim to look at what i say detail there's a simple fundamental flaw in the seven point four and that is it's modeled after seven point three which is passed burps by one was point three one point four which deals with sex offender seven point three allows the prosecution present evidence of a general sexual criminal propensity and according don it will make clear that that's exactly what it does it's not limited to any of the traditional categories of other crimes however seven point four also provides that the defense can robot that evidence with evidence of non sexual propensity or not propensity not commit sexual crime and can do so statute itself in in seven point three there's no rebuttal provision in seven point four it doesn't exist they've taken all those words out whoever copied it left all that out  presidency you can defend yourself you can say that's not true i can bring in witnesses to show it's not true i have experts i have any of these means seven point four doesn't have that so in other words the legislature has created a distinction between sex offenders were treated better and domestic batterers were treated worse a fundamental right the right to defend oneself is involved so it's not a rational basis test i would suggest that it's a strict scrutiny or at least a middle scrutiny test and i cannot imagine and the state is not suggested any distinction  so there's nothing in the text of seven point four which says that you can provide by showing a general propensity not committed mystic battery such as in mr ramsey case he might have shown for example by going into his treatment or other matters but that's not in seven point four and i think you can't read the words in that's why our intention is it's unconstitutional because it doesn't they can also be rebuffed even if rebel isn't used ignore all the common law about presentation of general coward or evidence and just let the defense do the same thing if that's true that that's the way the statutes interpret it it's not the way the statute word so that's that's really the that's true the crux of the question therefore and i just i may say that i recently litigated a seven point three  case in the first district was not not of public opinion but was a rehearsal just saying what sort of obvious that seven point three serves that you can introduce evidence of not propensity i don't think seven point four steps the same thing and that's why it's nevertheless because the failure to impeach brown with prior trust me from there's no certainty what that i guess the the the order protection case even if it was possible that it could be