hearing and the reason why mr eko wall did not receive his fair here is based on the comments in the room these accusations made by the trial judge claiming that the defense attorney just to get out of the way it was me i was the defense attorney you can't proceed unless there is confirmation from the secretary of state that is the actual holding more right because in mr moreland was served with the summary suspension at the time of his arrest correct that's correct that is would not be a reasonable assumption that that was the position you were taking i don't believe so judge and if you clarified it for the court i was not number one as i asked to clarify that and nothing to do you only respond to questions when you appear before the court or to make your position clear i do  one is your point was never served when your client was improperly served or wasn't served at the proper time frame or he was infection or priority so when there are three alternatives picking one or the other really isn't a valid exercise in taking a chance because if you take a or b you may have been wrong because c was the correct one so more  was it that the police officer saw someone else observe the defendant or that the police officers indicated on the report to the person who served the defendant when in fact he mailed it what exactly was the purpose for the question  asked that question so this might be a little as i understood the opening statement i made yes can you talk about that asked you see in your opening statement what i did say was this i wasn't challenging problem cause only in the this is about not probable cause for assault damage to property fleeing to looting this is probably cause for law and just once because of the sort of the way the hearing was going to come out a little differently that's why i made that when you look at the context of my opening statement it doesn't say i would linger seating on the only ground which is a petition which is probable cause i can certainly understand how reasonable person might perceive that she said you're not i didn't sit in a judge however he does it in a reasonable interpretation i mean how many times is it is the court ask you what are we going on in this petition and when someone starts their answer with only isn't it reasonable to assume they're saying only reasonable grounds judge i understand your state and i understand the record doesn't read as clean as i would like to and never does however i do believe and i'm not trying to this the bottom line is you're asking first rescission not based on what the officer testified to but based on the tenor of the entire hearing telfair statement i would say as both are yes i do believe that based on the officers testimony made in my petition about whether he was served at the doz summary suspension because of this incorrectness erroneous accusation made by the judge and based on that that's why my client didn't get a fair here because after an  allegation of lying of the smirking profession of law he walked away thinking this is a reasonable this is a quote the reason why i have lost that was because the judge didn't like my employer not because it w saying he was that was the question in your answer is no to my question was your response was some defense lawyers are doing things that are considered ethical or improper  there's a case out there that says this is what is supposed to happen and doesn't criticize anything and i i i guess i've never heard of going to the courthouse and filing something is an ethical or immoral what i assume you're alluding to be on the scope of this record is this series of events either by this attorney or other attorneys but how does that make this hearing for this defendant a fair hearing not what's indication there was any evidence that wasn't presented it could have been the cigarette exact opposite is true the evidence or the record shows that he made the allegations in this petition rescinded that were based on goo he had a he has to prove the only way he can prove that he didn't get services is through his client that's the only way he can prove he's got a permanent proof he has to assume it not who served him but that he was  before you pass the bar that if you filed a general appearance off and did not file a special and limited appearance you waived personal jurisdiction that that was t told you get more questions good so they were sort of persuades not asking what questions and in right away the judge went into this room with one of the trial just presented with the fact that it did not make the statement fixed my client was deprived of fair hearing and the judge ruling ultimately left the impression that it was the warriors fault why mr rather was petition was denied not based on the merits of the case respectfully yes and pression isn't the issue here the impression was some of that's the case that judge best that's what happened here my point is that the case doesn't hold as well none the less that was clearly the facts on which moreland's decision was based correct correct that was the facts in next situation although i would submit that even if says sorry charlie you want to stay have to wait in one hour until a piece of paper from the secretary of state is filed and what is the significance of that piece of paper when you totally have to read it you've been or the proceedings have been properly initiated what exactly is the purpose to be served by the secretary of state's confirmation would read require the case to be continued until the thirtieth day  the secretary of state therefore there is no suspension to rescind therefore there is no need for hearing at that time so a confirmation is nothing more than a student by the secretary of state that says i have suspended your li