apple a tree said johnson is david cates each side will have up to twenty minutes for their argument the op will also have five minutes for reebok you'll see the digital timekeeping device on my screen time is expired at the gal please remember no information including her own name for social security number date of birth and that person told her that she was not the person that was intended to receive it and in fact teresa a jobson who is twenty one years old younger had a different style security number was th anybody at no time was free said johnson ever a defendant and therefore all those counterclaims lacked any jurisdiction to be brought because she simply wasn't given jurisdiction and the initial place and years ago the ri in the attorneys for st financial identify her is the wrong party because a social security number birth date and things of that nature if you all name intended person who has served and sooty even though later we determine that you know there's wrong person later that goes to what would have been of the spree in the case and that gets into the  sir but i mean there are instances you know very often were you know somebody has an improper address or they get the wrong person and you know services a proper alias service ask to be issued and so i think what you know it's resale jobs which are to be would do is that for service everybody has to be absolutely perfect elsewise you know either since to the wrong person or you're not allowed to sue the intended person i don't think that's what the law rigged and in this case for four years first financial has been defending our claims against somebody they never sued and they they had a service was received teresa a johnson was reserve you did you did suggest at the beginning of your presentation that this is somewhat unique to b p bring in the reaction of the citizen action act have there been any other cases that and very good questions just as are various and just as well and i'm going to address those because i think they underpin why the slap motion is inappropriate but i think it's important to understand a little bit of  again but these cases are about debt collectors who buy tranches of debts from other parties that come with limited information and if you look in this case sporting record one hundred and ninety nine dollars that is the asset purchase that are specifically disclaimed any warranties related to whether or not they're collectible whether stock mentation showing who owns it or whether that the the alleged debts even enforceable so st financial knows when they buy it that there may be we have the complaint that was filed in this case it's four paragraphs and the caption states to rescind johnson doesn't state theresa age onsen doesn't state to reste and johnson there's no birth date there's no so security number there's not even the name of the credit card company who was supposed to be this debt along to it was sold for its financial in fact the st paragraph says that the debt is related to a credit card agreement or a line of credit agreement we don't even know what the alleged debt is all we know d is that st financial filed a lawsuit name theresa johnson and played four paragraphs one sentence a piece saying the trees are johnson owed seven thousand five hundred dollars the only other piece of evidence we have related to address she was served with that and it was prepared by the planes which is st financial there's no attachments to the complaints or anything else such as an affidavit stating who it is there is no credit card application there's no b beneficial are any of those required to be filed with a complaint or is the complaint you know fatally flawed for lack of having those or perhaps so your honor two points that yes i understand under illinois civil procedure if you're suing under a contract you have to attach the contract so in this case that would have required the credit card agreement or some other similar document showing that there was a contract that's been breached a nd date secondarily under the only collection agency act and  court decisions interpret in the same it's required that you attach the bill of sale and chain of title documents back to the original creditor showing that how the debt moved or the alleged debt moves from the original creditor to st financial all those documents are required that's according record one of the six but in that motion to realign the parties they admit in the pleading to a circuit court they sued theresa johnson who filed a counterclaim they have missed that she was a defendant in the underlying lawsuit and they also affirmatively state that they want her to be plaintiffs now obviously as far as financial admitted the reason they wanted to do that is because they wanted to go outside of court they didn't want to be in secret county where they filed a lawsuit because the supreme court said it's a counter defendant you can't remove the claim but it's the defendants you can't so as this court's aware your review of a c p a motion is done although this is the st point at which this court could stop and dismiss this appeal because you have  party st financial found pleading in circuit court stating that she is a party and now they're arguing four years later to this court that she never was so you have an unstoppable problem there second drummer's even if you  here for years after they countered when misfiled they bring up a slap argument which was never raised previously they participated in the litigation they took my client's deposition they issued discovery so for all those reasons st financial could be found to have waived this argument the but even if the court disregards all of those things and we get to the actual merits of whether or not the slap applies to justice by bears to your point in our research we  found a case where a slap was found because of a counter claim that was file a stand simply this would be a slap violation would apply to affirmative defenses because we're interfering with their ability to collect judgments from clients if we try to spend that it can be there's no there's no slap violation here based on what st financial must plead it proves st it as appellants council actually pointed out they have to prove they were seeking a favorable government outcome well it's counsels to be believed they were trying to sue our client all so how can that be a favorable government outcome if they were trying to sue us in st place seconds there's been a lot of discussion and i think a justice b you kind of hit the nail on the head as far as where was theresa johnson my client actually sued in this case and you know the appellants has argued in its briefing that this is not a case of mistaken identity no must be taken it true at this as true at this point because this is a motion to dismiss and our counter claim can be found at sporting records six hundred and fifty seven and going from there and our allegations are that again they filed no affidavit they f supporting documents as required by law they violated illinois law by claiming that someone owed a debt when they didn't they didn't do any work to ensure that the person they were suing was the appropriate party that's a violation of illinois law and they suggest and i'm assuming and like to know what your position is on this page one priest they claim this case therefore comes down to the question of whether treason a was merely s or actually sued on page eleven of the brief the appeal should be decided on the question of whether trees in a resume were simply served so i don't know that they have agreed that they sue the wrong person they say they have agreed that they have served the wrong person what do you agree that that's what this case boils down to where they say why she sued or where she served no your honor i don't i believe the case boils down to whether or not there's a violation of the citizen protection participation in government basically was the purpose of the act that you can't sue a political opponent was the reason for it yet but yes to be sued in order for the act to be come into play well they're using as a defensive shield and we have sued them your honor our counterclaim it is valid and one of the reasons i think that getting hung up on the personal jurisdiction argument is kind of a misnomer that your college case you know is arguing that the person wrongfully or mistaken the court had personal jurisdiction because she waived it so the court's going to choir personal jurisdiction by various different mechanisms and i think it's important when we're talking about souter serves are on it so that this court has actually addressed a similar mirror can express in a law firm for debt collection pile a sions based on a judgement day allegedly had attained obtained against him and his argument was that i wasn't actually sued because i'm ron he cazador who you the prior judgment could defeat the later debt collection lawsuit the objective manner of manifestations of cleanups intense are the best indications of the plaintiff's intent so what we look at is the complaint in the surrounding documents to mistakenly sued the wrong parties and the quote so i don't think there's any doubt based on just as well as opinion in the st district opinion that when you sue the wrong person it doesn't mean you have sued them it just means you need to correct your error and you've made an  i think the a fellow court goes further and in states quote the plaintiff's rather subjective explanation of whom he intended to sue cannot prevail over a somewhat more obvious conclusion that he intended to sue the specific party whom he named in  wouldn't make any difference if on the complaint itself it simply listed teresa not certain and had her address trees that he's addressed on her mistaken ring albeit but have the wrong address on the complaint doesn't make any difference that we don't find the wrong address except for on the summons well your honor i don't think i think it's a distinction without a difference because based on this court's opinion and cazador what we have to look at is the objective evidence before the court at the time the lawsuit is filed and you know to to say that the summons is more probative than the complaint i think is a stage without a difference the only evidence that we have your honor is objective evidence anywhere that she wasn't a proper party and she was wrongfully sued and we've taken measures to answer and defend her and we have filed counterclaims based on the violation of law that basically were violated when they that they that we have no chance of success on the merits of any of our claims and that's simply true we've illustrated how they violated statutes by not attaching appropriate documents we've illustrated that they claim someone  we're trying to take away their right to sue that's not what we're doing our verified amended counter claim illustrates that st financial hires a web affiliated companies and there's testimony from thomas brown who testified in the hearing in s  their affiliates and there's a company called st financial portfolio services that handles all of that st financial portfolio services is a rd party defendant in our very iconic line and the reason they are is because first financial portfolio services is not licensed as a debt collector nor any of the other entities the only collection agency act specifically states that to collect debt in this state the legislature has made it a priority that if you are going to do that activity you have to be licensed and none of these entities that st financial investment fund three employ are actually licensed so there's a provision of the only collection agency act that authorizes our unscrupulous more times isn't the doesn't the fund three we're not seeking to enjoin st financial investment fund three right to petition the courts for redress who isn't joint is st financial investment or st financial corp folio services who is not licensed who does all the debt collection activity for financial investment fund three though that entity is the war and against whom the restraining order was issued specifically authorized by the only state legislature which found that collecting debts without a license which st financial investment fund threes  person that appear in court to testify admitted that that they do that is an irreparable harm to the citizens of state of illinois an injunction should issue so st financial portfolio services is violating that law we have not asked to is part of the verified amended counter claim it's a weird procedural posture your honor because they amended counter claim was filed the motion to dismiss based on a c p a was filed that was brief and argued and then after that was denied the verified a if you're out or the st council says that there's no objective evidence of who intended to serve i really i don't know what a social security number they can be other than objective evidence you know that their arguments he made are very interesting you know johnson who received the summons doesn't become a defendant by virtue of simply being handed a piece of paper that has a name st and last name the same the earth that's what the reisman case i see case i simply as charles the right  she was never sued therefore everything else falls away then you know i guess this is a participation at one o'clock but if you look at it within the context of certainly there is a judicial proceeding going on below if you know the act if that counter