state while multiple indictments and as long as they were no good were dismissed by the court if the speedy trial would never be dismissal there a speedy trial of time would have been told until such time as the deal had been resolved yes that would be correct so what you're suggesting is  that in that situation there would have been tolling but by re inviting there is no to crass so there there even though there's no prejudice to the state for purposes of the statute or the speedy trial term running if there is an appeal you're saying that if there's or a re indictment not it's substantively defective such that he is not capable of presenting the defense so if he's going to file the motion to dismiss it for trial he is being penalized by pointing out that the formal or i should say the informal procedural defects which would require a refiling or an appeal what's the advantage here to a defendant to raise these arguments if in fact the clock gets reset every time  once you dismissed because the because the people did not take any action they are entitled to the new term to be to start anew and the defendant asked to refile a demand arguments that were below i believe defense had argued then we can all we can all agree that one hundred sixty days go left from the initial finding of them in on march twenty third two thousand or the demand in march march twenty third two thousand and seven fact the state should be out by a motion to reconsider and or appeal the case of them thirty days when they decide to sit there and do nothing their point jeffrey and task on that charge and the court is up to with them was without jurisdiction  charge however was not conceding based upon some of the language and i think it's van shot in the recent case that this court decided it would do well is that what the state did in this case was they purposely in the state of illinois yes it was asking questions about whether or not the state presented argument or facts or evidence to establish whether or not the trial court's ruling was manifestly wrong yes or against the manifest w it wasn't a question wasn't asked who was asked for it and so if you are you conceding that the trial court didn't have to make any findings as to the claims that were raised by the state that this was the same charge and therefore if  i was a trial counsel i can tell you one hundred sixty days is not run as far as trial goes while i was arguing the thirty days was from the date of the first dismissal the state has first continuance there after and did nothing and it's our position that they should have filed a motion to reconsider and a more an appeal because there's no question that their case had been harmed by the ruling on the dismissal in that case are you saying that by the time your motion second motion to dismiss was for tha two thousand and seven date until the first dismissal it was never asked to calculate that and that she was never raised below my issue was it was a new charge in the court of law that argument here of course jurisdiction is a very technical thing in your argument seems while the trial court still had jurisdiction correct otherwise we're vestment would have had to take place in order for us to have jurisdiction to review this judgment that was entered on the second motion to position at the trial court you argue two things the lack of jurisdiction so to speak and new versus old charge correct that is yes and changed today mean there been some ok that's correct those are the two arguments that will raise below and the only argument that was ruled on was that it was a new charge or was no the court did not rule on whether or not  perceive in any way that the states changed their position from truck court to here in in their argument to the trial court to he you the second motion to dismiss it was a very short argument and i believe the record i haven't looked at the record recently but i believe the record reflect that the state just basically said we're allowed to do this that hundred sixty days is not indictment they must remain within thirty days there is no time constraints specifically within a motion to dismiss and then reengagement under section one fourteen deaths one