let's go to the it's the substance of your your argument page eleven if you brief you you say the absence of the certificate is evidence that the nose was not sunk right you have you ever heard to coin a phrase one of our colleagues have you ever but we're not looking at that in that fashion now you're in the trial court you have filed two fourteen or petitions so the burden going forward the evidence is on you and now on appeal the burden of presenting us with a complete record in order to sustain your arguments is on rely on the finding i understand that but what the issue in this case is what has been shown in the record if we don't the finding was mis made based upon something now because a certificate or mailing isn't in the court file does that mean that it wasn't there sitting in front of the judge today the judge made the finding was that mean that there wasn't testimony about the mailing i mean we just don't know unless we have a transcript or or a substitute from that day to show again contrary to what is shown in the r that you've mentioned what's not in the record or what's in the record with respect to the record and in the form i or the supreme court examined the record to see if there was if the anything in the recycles of the record of the judgment the chills proof was made in the corporate law that such notice was addressed the defendants at their place of residence as to schools within ten days after the first publication or at any other inference we have an obligation to follow it and in this case they have the affidavit that those was sun and you also have publication so you're saying that there's no evidence irrelevant in any of well because you argue that thor wires are relevant because it was decided before one thousand nine hundred sixty four of them to the only constitution which changed the scope of subject matter jurisdiction but the issue here is trying to get back home he was now ski's ownership of this property my client has been that the trustee has no measure interest in this property the defendant below in trying to overturn the judgment does not seek any property interest here today now that she's referred to a claim against the event that the right what she would like to do damn dora's box were foreclosure the phones lawyers years in years after of foreclosure have been affected and after the sale has been in front and after the new property owners have completely established the right to live there you're talking public policy yes right now that right now but the issue for us is whether or not the act actually requires that the certificate be part of the record which is the fence contention that and they rely on for mine for the proposition that they do make that contention and they do rely on and you don't you don't you do not contest the fact that the certificate from the clerk is not part of the record this or to from the clerk is not part of the record that's absolutely we don't know here whether the notice was mailed or not we have no clue as to whether or not but eight years later eight years after the foreclosure judgment is final more than seven years after the sale have been confirmed it becomes impossible to try to figure that out we don't know whether the same people working with works office even if they did how likely would it be that that person would remember in one specific foreclosure case in the year of two thousand and eight which was a very heavy the on property issues and now and so they've been renting the property ya'll certainly has some point before eight years later they stopped collecting rents because there was now he's moved into the house they bought the we had a judgment a foreclosure we had every right to sell that property in the property was sold and it wasn't until seven years later that they came back to try to on one really the issue of lancers that was one that probably would end up having to go back to the trial court for the pertinent part of their cases that the signature does not require the certificate of the publication or mailing to be filed but only provides that the certificate of the clerk through affidavit of any other reputable person shall be sufficient evidence of the ma elected official public official takes an oath of office are you familiar with the presumption that that public officials took form their due the support of the world was i am so we also have the presumption that the court mailed the certificate because they are mailed the notices because it's required by law so the presumption exists that that actually took place right but i think a in the absence of a certificate this is not mean that we do not honor the