this court subsequently reversed based on one of the alternative arguments that i had made and found that carter had not even sufficient affirmative side of error to war were factual i guess i am proof it's a procedural question really the finance brief it page nine and also in a footnote i think you'll know what i'm talking about a minute at the bottom of page thirty three amended petition but the teachers and this one here and then those decisions were appealed to the appellate court all this happening while this case is pending before this court and i mean i'd like to hear your explanation i'm wondering here are these proceedings in front of us and and know what t m you know i would note that the state failed to address the problem in its reply brief even when the fact of those other proceedings were pointed out b entrenched in illinois law because there's a clear understanding and whether it's called unclean hands or whether it's called invited error or whether it's just generally trying to stop the principles there is a basis in the cases are  was not in a position to have to assert the right of his father to have proper service given to him and that principle my opponent tries to say is simply something that has to do with an interpretation of the juvenile court act but i don't read any such limitation into that whole thing because it appears to stand for the general proposition that what this defendant is trying to do should not be done and the concern for not really simply on the basis of failure to make an affirmative showing of error is the fact that there are other cases  so this argument has been made there of what are basically saying yes it's not going to go away and as much as i wish that kelley carter could resolve all of these cases he didn't which is why when i came before you the last time i asked for a one size fits all rule which my opponent at that time also asked for so that these claims wouldn't be dependent on the specifics the particulars of what's in the proof of service or time which the people have which the defendant to fourteen no one has to file a response and there is a complete split along those lines to as to whether or not the person the defendant who is hark you have a defendant who files and untimely to fourteen a one titian he admits that he did not he he puts in the petition that he sent one time to the first class mail simply has an additional service that you can purchase which is the certified mail that gets added onto it so at that stated in my brief it's our position that first class postage is no  more showing the affirmative error than come in parker's attempted service by placing the darkness in the institutional mail properly addressed to the parties list through the united states postal service that just because the term first class postage it's contrary to what the state has represented on this issue and was not framed in the way that it is being framed by mr matthews and in calvin carter this case is fundamentally ghost the issue of whether or the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the parties in order to establish personal jurisdiction in the state of illinois you have to either affect proper service on the other litigant or you have to have an affirmative challenging personal jurisdiction on appeal and indeed most of the cases from from this court throughout the appellate parts of the state indicate that it's the trial court that has the responsibility determine whether it has personal jurisdiction over the parties in the first instance and that is what we've just talked about i think the fact that the circuit court purported to rule on a petition over which you do not have to stiction in subsequent proceedings in this he's highlights why the trial court needs to consider hearings on petition for relief from judgment he says and you know the only way as i mentioned initially the only way you have personal jurisdiction in a civil proceeding over the opposing party is either through this and there was no judgment entered against the state here so there are some surface appeal at least to the argument that the state doesn't disagree with a just solution for the resolution here well and should not distinguishable because as i pointed out and in the brief it deals with an issue under the juvenile court act where you have specific provisions dealing with notice and service to a minor party and in  prevent the aca leaf from challenging us ruling on on appeal and also i would point out that ultimately the minors father did have personal jurisdiction the court noted that he was served cited actually speak to this issue and one case in particular is people v hopkins and in people the hopkins that dealt with a case in which the the defendant had then participating in a bribery had attempted to who had participated in this attempted seeing that there is some years in which even his participation won't prevent him from raising the issue on appeal and you know similarly you know even though it's  then sophisticated litigant in this case who doesn't know the proper service rules that should preclude him from challenging that making that claim on appeal that was to the personal jurisdiction of the for an opportunity to file a response the state to say it's fine with what happened and yet the position that you're taking this failure of proper service becomes a sort of the shield him that we look at this in the big picture and say that in terms of equities that just cannot follow that the fact of the fund and therefore gives him relief can respond to that sure just to say i think that you know ultimately name this issue isn't going to go away because we have not yet resolved at what point the thirty day period begins and you know we have multiple cases historically and yet you know i'm sure the currently pending cases in which was agreed that the thirty day period has not passed so the petition is right not right for adjudication none of those cases require consideration of the merits neither of those cases right were prior a consideration of harm i think you know all ultimately this is an issue of more fundamental issue that was to how we handle these proceedings in the trial court from a procedural contacts and you know regardless of whether or not i mean his amended petition my understanding is that he's attached  change consideration of either lying merits of the claim but all ultimately it goes back to sort of a a more fundamental issues planned when should the trial court consider these petitions in a case that so on like any other civil you know will then send and i think the hard contemplated that that the thirty clock would run on the date of proper service the other thing i would point out is this state just in say anything about the petition in the trial court seats not objecting on appeal but the state was in the courtroom at least one occasion and had an opportunity to say either you know we don't object to the defective service or we have no home in we're not not intending to file a response and so you know on the terms of whether or not the seat actually received the petition or whether they affirm because he dealt constitutional issues those would be issues that were probably more appropriately brought in the post conviction process context and because of the trial court's ruling on his petition for relief from judgment they have a precludes a fact point forward for obvious reasons but this problem but the state is saying that they have no problem with what happened here we're asking what in terms of the promise of jurisdiction service notice opportunity the state to be heard how prejudice analysis that would be my response that you know where trial court has an obligation in the first instance to consider whether has full subject matter and personal jurisdictional parties and that we simply can have proceedings in which of service on the stage is appropriate thirty days is expired i'm dismissing the petition what's the difference from the defendant's standpoint the the what happened here well the difference is he clearly anything personal jurisdiction can't be yes there's no personal jurisdiction over the parties in the first instance in the trial court yet they are going on to the proceedings on appeal or does subsequent judgment it's it's way for lack of personal jurisdiction there's there's no authority that i've been able to turn up that explicitly states that he's precluded from raising this issue on appeal and and even as i pointed out in people the hakims and some of the other there has to be a starting point for that there it is and if the state is taking the position while we're not going to respond to these petitions that thirty day period still has to start from somewhere in the absence of proper service or an affirmative waiver  you know there is no there is no other starting point i mean if it were this would be cured either by the trial court looking at the proof of service and determining you know if it's just back to the stevens president or asking the state you and his cross examining someone or or actually just sitting there and there's an objection made right and he doesn't he or she doesn't object and pro se men and then they bring up the error that the post from motion you know we say well it's way too great because the pro se litigant would get two bites if they yeah but we can't we can't make rules of this court based on it's a pro s postage stamp and you know there was no proper service under rule want to find i see my time is up some thank you very much preliminary question that always has to be answered i'm going to start that there is no quick judgment here there is no personal just jurisdiction impediment and that is because there was party that calls into question personal jurisdiction and to be perfectly clear it does trial work it entered a judgment against the people in this case that would pose a personal jurisdiction problem but where there is no were that's being entered against the party upon whom there is no service that's not create a personal jurisdiction in adamant and we know that from m w because m w involves a father who was unnecessary an indispensable party to that action that is what parent isn't a juvenile case and in the face of that this court found that the two year period it's without prejudice and when it's in excess of the two year period that were can be entered with prejudice and that is because there was an service affected and the word has to make a fine again i'm not saying it happens here but three ways to affect proper service and none of them is utilized and that's what happened here this is an action that's grounded activity and because it's a grounded in equity when we look at the act which the situation there conviction that issue was dismissed and that was the subject of an appeal and the people who fails on that case as well so the claim that he didn't have the opportunity he did have the opportunity this is the third time the third go around on this case  has never been a situation that i'm aware of were to fourteen no one goes up on appeal and the state has ever arrested is a black hate no no no you didn't serve us we're not a response to this claim any time substance a claim has been raised in front of the appellate court it's been coexist because this is not a question of not wanting thirty days that is not what i'm suggesting to the court that if you move and you say that the defendant doesn't have the right to bring this action that we are not concerned with the rules of the score and the necessity for