twenty fourth with micheline let me ask one more point on that the administrators issue was in one thousand nine hundred ninety right and the statute provides that the administrators judgment is basically the equivalent of a court judgment whatever that means and believe me i used to practice in the syrian i never figured out what it meant because we couldn't issue cornishman summonses so the city chicago like my all clients came up with a system of going into court and getting  transformed into a real judgment that wasn't forcible right and the city did that through and one case out of two thousand and four did your client get any notice of the two thousand and four m one case because it's sort of a kinda registering a form judgment and if you're rich reform judgment you have to serve with a summons and you get a chance to come into court to say this really isn't a judgment against me there's some other reason why the illinois court should recognize the form judg of the circuit court so even you know taking that they were well the on thirty five days no matter what argument you can make as far as their notice and when they should have filed for mystery if you with  section is more apt to the ship all slander libel based on words and property so you're saying it doesn't start the telling doesn't start until one until they take it up with every day  please the court stonestreet received notice of the administrative judgment that was entered in this matter no later than march twenty third two thousand that's it page ninety three of the original record not  how do we get around the fact that this guy mr jackson was not an attorney and that the your administrative law judge didn't act as a traffic cop and say mr tessin you cannot represent a corporation in my hearing how do we get a is that mr johnson filed was actually a second proceeding in this matter there was an entirely there was an earlier proceeding where it was stated on the record it was an order entered by the department that said stonestreet was saying that i'm paraphrasing of course  isn't stone street's position that they were served preserved because we have nothing before us showing that somebody did appear in wave jurisdiction because m it's small claims or municipal or when i was in chancery somebody tried to short for a corporation we would stop them and say hey are you want to turn it if they didn't introduce themselves as such well i think that presumption has to apply to materials that he brought to the court and also something what does it matter for the purpose of a motion to quash awareness does not matter if you could be perfectly well aware they could be sued but if you have been served everything the judge does is void one but not the other ones i'm not aware of but it's it's it's unclear why certain things survived where they where they might have been that's simply not part of the record for me but the fact remains that stonestreet received notice with  judgment if there was no jurisdiction all right well that i believe that i believe that is correct but i believe that is reflected in the procedures in the in the ordnance adopted by the city regarding moving to vacate in your example the individual's default not have notice or has an arguable claim for lack of notice if there is a default if there is not a default then that falls away that there is that at that point the regular procedure for going to review the thirty five days to the judgment thirty five days but when they file that motion of a cage and when they claim they're seeking a minister you just the decision on the motion of a that triggered a number of requirements the statute they cannot complain that the record was stuck complete in regards to the suggestion that photographs were offered or what do you know about what was in the record in this case other record as we said we cite these in our brief i can get the citations if necessary but it is clear that at the proceeding at the department order was entered and that was well that is at least at bare minimum what was put in front of the department there may have been more but sadly in accordance with the local records lost those lawfully destroyed and just just w corporation right it doesn't the city have to follow its own ordinances i would not can a short circuit in to say well this is good enough to meet due process but due process is constrained by the text of the he was practicing law that he was acting as a representative in the sense that he would appeal this he found an appearance but he did not check that he was acting as a representative he merely has a box to check on the form i believe there was so serious complaint there was no at least one poster saying stonestreet complain that there is no check mark in those boxes on that form there are a number of different check boxes i can't remember exactly what each one says but there are check boxes on the form when it appears this file mr johnson did not claim to be  legal representative in the sense that i let represent the city or it was a council representing so street he appear to present evidence and add a second proceeding in which is i know what happened in the first proceeding but the order was entered  a burden to show that there is an irregularity below that for instance they claim that the city was not represented by proper counseling but they have to they can't just say that they have to come forward evidence affirmatively showing that they can't just say well we don't exactly that is a back to correct if they had if they had waited thirty five days in their specific provisions it in the minister of view statutes that provide that if if there are enough the record was completely destroyed by two thousand which it obviously it's missing it's been destroyed and the circuit court of remanded back to the department to conduct further hearings that we believe according to these are the record i'm not sure it's at this point type of when the circuit or and  thirty five day window being triggered by when you found out there was a decision fourteen years earlier i mean that them i'm just not getting that point that that seems to be an equitable result of a statutory scheme but it  believe it be difficult to say that he responded would not be entitled to that it difficult month plus the thirty five days to you know i can i can back ship there if they had filed administrative review when call you know in two thousand and whatever it is not yet when they claim they found out about all this the city would have moved to dismiss it as untimely and that is not clear from the record because they did not have i mean i know  doctoring that you know there is a judgment pending and waiting a decade before say i never got the order there might be some concerns there but it seems like it's most consist of a statute that goes protective of rights of individuals and even even given that though even given that sheriff protection so sri didn't do that they didn't file in thirty five days at most generous possible reading of the thirty five day limitation is that march twenty third two thousand and nine that they who produced these photographs and at the practice of law how did how do we know from the record if we have that photographs were introduced we don't have photographs do we i have no idea of the city attached some somehow photographs