court question the state's attorney who was present on that date to determine whether or not service it actually been made on that on the state nor did they did the trial court ever attempt to ascertain whether or not the state would be waiving its objection to the certain way but i don't have the means or the funds to do so so please allow me to go ahead at that point that she has signaled to the trial court that we have a service problem and that neither question the state during the court call education and that's what we're arguing here and i understand that how do we define a reasonable period is it another basis for the trial court to just get rid of it but in this case you know we have these procedures here for a reason to it's to assist in the yes we are not accepting surfer's what's the next step then i think just to be on the safe side would the court i'm sorry it's a state says we do senators we're not going to accept service what's the next step in it and how long should a trial court allow this to go on unfortunately i don't have i  i think i think what we have here under product and made in this course is already instructed what's what's supposed to happen and i think it was actually the language and  they're going to be waiving that objection to the proper service or not so if you like that there's already a set of rules here and we don't need to jump to more to the conflict line this is at the final piece of the circle that you keep avoiding when i ask you is there they keep saying no we're not going to do it cases you know five times six times seven times no service if that were a simple case dismissed this petition i'm sorry who who says no we're not going to do with the state is this to say we're not accepting service we have not been served i'm standing here is a courtesy but i have not been served i am not waiting at what point can the trial court dismissed that petition for failure to obtain surface again i think the procedures say within a reasonable time but again that's not the hypothetical situation was it played here i apologise but it had a better response prepared but at this point we know that the judge would reflect where he was in his consideration of the petition but at no time did it ever make any statement to be interpret the passage of time as a state's waiver of service you need an explicit statement from this from the state to say you know we were improperly served and no matter  just few that the state is not part of the surge by regular mail the next question isn't whether or not the state ever clearly articulated its intention of waiting the required service and again this court in maiden said under have the means to file these kind of the titians and all the sudden you get i think just this recurring issue in this court so it's best to resolve it here if anything that we see the trial court not here it's  state says we are not accepting service as with my co counsel i remember reading something but i'm not sure which case it was it may be her justice bearcat it was cooling from mai and that kind of hinted at it but it's one of the cases mentioned dismissing without prejudice they have i think would take care of jurors justice jorgensen's question about what happens when the state says you what we were not served we're not making up our appearance another question was raised what happens in this case the defend fifteen they point out that all defendants are allowed a reasonable amount of legal mail and if they don't have the funds at that time they can do even power to against future funds so th no indication in the record other than the single document by the defendant that there was not proper service so it may have been overlooked by the trial court by the assistance the if you look at it in these cases the trials of who are and cannot who'll be against the party who might have been prejudiced by the failure for service but the poor can dismiss out the petition by is not these strict technical correct service but whether the objective and intent of the legislation has been followed and they find in  timeline and again you shouldn't reward the party who hasn't followed the rules by giving them a second by the council let me ask you this what if the track were granted that titian would you still be standing there and saying well no problem we didn't give we give you know we  had a chance to file a response but we didn't do it so let's just accept the trial court's decision i mean it should mean we shouldn't rule hard regardless of what the trial court had the other cases that they happen to want to the standing question which is really best laid out for the first time in the q case which just came down and was that the motion for additional authority and i think they have it right they have looked at it and they said you know b and they have this site in illinois supreme court's cases that say the party who has standing to bring me jaques into the service issue is the party that did not receive proper service so i think that is the line of cases to follow and that is the proper procedure to follow shocking it certainly would be preferable if the state or the trial court noticed it they announce it in coors the state in their objects or  indication that the state was present so it couldn't be a claim of the actual know this because the first time they're hearing about it is when it's being dismissed out so that was way more than there was nothing indicating they were present docket correct correct sitting this time in your position is as long as the state isn't indicated present in the record there they are charged with actual knowledge of what's proceeding i think in this case where you have this six presidents six presidents is on the record and the extensive timeline is just  are actually i think you points out way or other which is you're trying to achieve the legislative objective and intent which is making sure that the responding party has if not technical notice actual notice and i think there are some there can be some closer cases and certainly this is not one of them where you've got eleven months you know there isn't actually said standing up and make an affirmative waiver you are risking your rights but in this case i think the best policy overall is to see if the actual purpose of the legislation has well as i said i'm not sure which case it is it may be it could have been made no progress or harder but they said in that case what you would do is dismissed without prejudice then the defendant can there just a couple points council right actually it's supreme court rule one o three b which allows the trial court if there is not a proper service to the dismissed without prejudice and allow the petitioner to do it the right way so we do have just completely underscores the confusion that that everybody seems to have over these types of petitions and i think pop psychologist referred to as teachable moments and that's exactly what we have here is for this reviewing court to instruct the trial courts exactly what needs