they please the court counsel so in this case you're presented with a frustrating leave a statute that when you combine with the mclean county state's attorney's practices allows the government to take personal property from presumed innocent citizens without the requisite  first time it was brought up and now because i was the first time we had the opportunity courts the way the way this happens defendants people whose having their properties taken don't get access to the court and the state's attorney deeds if they do right i understand verify claim under section six and then the state's attorney if you do that the state's attorney must file that's right there titian with the circuit court yes just have a did you do that not in that no no that's right and section fourteen says if you're denied follow the procedures of section six which is filing a claim with the state's attorney's office and a bond with no guidance as to what could possibly i'm going wrong with the first claim on it doesn't section never filed with they should have filed with the circuit court they just ignite my right claim that's actually that's actually not my position ok i stipulate that there was an error with the bottom so i believe that the state's attorney i'm absolutely under the in their opinion they don't they believe there is a problem with the claim or bond and it's as you can see from the denial of the statute there can be a million things wrong with that with the claim upon there's this this is a tire goal of what suits from his office is supposed to do if there's anything wrong now reasonable office would say this is what's wrong with your mind if you want a shot at this fix it this is what's wrong with your claim you didn't put the address where you can serve get something and like get a lot of these are handled pro se without attorneys but this one was it doesn't wasn't that's correct that's correct my memory problem is the destruction statute and the fact that it does not address what is a very common occurrence which is where there is substantial compliance with the statute and the that requiring a strict compliance of the statute to make a decision on whether strict compliance happened that this is not equitable the governor wants to take your property the burden should be on them to let you know how  in a long list of any of many other things that were not true probably over let me grab their denial claim they have they it's they have six paragraphs indicating different things that could be wrong with it and say all of these apply to you none of which compliance rather than the strictest compliance that keeps the party who benefits from the seizure from erring on the side of their own benefit or require the state to give accurate notice  think both of those things should happen if there's any question if there's any question as to whether there was compliance the state's attorney should be required to isn't institute judicial in room proceedings let the courts sort it out the state's  government should always err on the side of access to the courts the way the state's attorney's office is really statute makes them the gatekeeper on on any kind of this so they're not for the questions a timely claim without the requisite bond is in the same position as someone who feels bile explains it all and that pretty much sums up what we have in this case counsel conceded here today that in fact that the bond was incorrectly addressed of state's attorney obviously we can't have a situation where the state's attorneys endorsing a check and sending it over to the clerk's office the statute is very clear about who that check is supposed to be made out who is the clerk of court this is not a situation under the drug asset forfeiture act where there's any ambiguity i will make one concession and i spoke to the state's attorney's office in this case about this time in speaking to other states attorneys throughout the fourth district about this issue and it's one about it he dresses the question of whether we should be responding to these improper it bus at all we're states attorneys make a good faith effort to work with opposing counsel in these counties and present a format letter not a form letter that you might get from your congressman but a format letter that goes through each of the areas of the statute i think  these are derived from previous states attorneys two who had a format for outlining for pro se litigants you know what the elements of the statu were allegations that things were wrong that weren't or do you stand by that letter in terms of what it said was deficient no no i think in that list of the additional five paragraphs you could certainly i think these things should be should be and i think the should be construed liberally in in favor of the defendant in these cases so are you saying at this point your position is that the only thing wrong was the fact that the bond was made payable to the wrong party for the sake of argument i would concede that because that's all that's necessary and this is gets back to the point i was going to make about the concession your honor if we were silent there's no problem with that at all but i think when when a government act or when an actor of the state affirmatively response when it's not necessary where it could potentially misleading pro se defendant that can be problematic we're trying to clean that up in this case that's not a concern he  he was represented by counsel to the issue that that did make a defective in this case was clearly outlined by statute specifically says who the the bond is supposed to be made out to here here what we're doing is an extreme right maybe ok it's taking somebody so here in this case the government was clearly on notice that this person was trying to make a valid claim they actually posted it it was just it was in the correct amount just made the wrong and i mean to do nothing rash of the government sit back and say well too bad you didn't do it right when they're on notice that this person is trying to file a they shouldn't and that's why that's why the government does try to do something the state's attorney's office does try to respond in this i think it could have been better done in the circumstance i know it's kind of an aside but i'm hopeful that you're not indicating that you're to represent these offices they should do nothing i mean i think it's important that they were drunk that were between the parties in the at least trying to resolve the matter and not just ignoring correct me my my point in saying that simply was that before we mislead them i would rather than be silent but i think we should not mislead them but direct them appropriately to where they've gone wrong particularly when you're dealing with pro se litigants which is what they deal with in the majority of vs sixteen thousand five hundred dollars is a fifth district case they rely on the ninth circuit court case for that proposition that that case law and that view of the statu along those lines it is just as holder white and and that's why i started by saying i believe the mr mauer's arguments better directed at the legislature this is a big government versus small government argument it's not a it's not a question about what governs in this case the statute is what it is ok it's aggressive prevent but i believe that governments have to start so if they miss a day of their deadline they're out that's correct and so they're strict compliance on the government precise but there are rules for litigants in this case pro se or otherwise and that's why in fact i believe that's why section fourteen is in place it gives them one more bite at the apple so that if you if you miss these deadlines and the last sentence of section fourteen states as follows if a claim and cost on is filed under the section then the procedure described in session nine of this article shall apply so if it is corrected the state's attorney has no discretion this section apply section nine and that is the judicial i'm now to justice pope's point earlier about how this is important there it is important to make sure that the state strictly complies but there's also a balance  defendant's argument is well taken and that perhaps any verified claim if they're on a napkin and it's it's labeled verified claim and they send a check for less than ten percent made out to the state's attorney maybe we should just for bass of the court the problem with that is like everything in law there's a balance we can't have every pro se litigant and in fact every litigant that's for presented by counsel that doesn't comply with the statute flood the court with these inquiries and have what  amounts to meaningless hearings where judges come in and say ok what was filed counsel this clearly doesn't comply with the statute states attorney why didn't you just tell them this didn't play comply with statute why are you wasting our time it's a balanced approach and i think the statute strikes the right away here is your problem not theirs but all the props like which apparently don't really apply here representations about what you would do are appropriate i can see how that might be helpful for the fourth district but spoke to some folks yesterday on the phone about this issue i clearly don't believe that it impacts the ultimate result in this case but is it better practice and are we charged with the better practice yes we are i do this or what how often do these things arise know mr robinson when i was here a court which are cases and the trial court level that the state's attorneys out there make the county i believe they sent a letter that was more specific as to what was wrong so there's probably very practices i would think i believe that they did but i'm not certain about it ok they did but they didn't say you know you've got to check made out well i think in this case in there in the state attorney's defense after  attorney in most of these counties that handles these this isn't their only job and they get flooded with pro se responses so when they are represented by counsel assistant state's attorney generally presupposes that for example if i send the check back and give them the slip this council will recognize the problem it's explicit in the statute so if i'm council and i get that back i go to the statue and look and say oh i could have i see where maybe we thought it should go to the state attorney but it clearly says that let's change it modify counsel obviously knows that the other paragraphs outlining what was wrong didn't apply he said it's obvious on its face so that wasn't the problem counsel knew what the problem was and even if the state's attorney was wrong in making that determination once the forfeiture moved forward under section fourteen they had an additional thirty days under the statute to comply they didn't in fact they waited an additional sixty days a well into december i think was the day after christmas that counsel filed this in mark ace seeking and third tory clerk to our judgment on that issue which is in some ways i suppose if they got a declaratory judgment it wouldn't have mattered because i think there's no longer jurisdiction in this case and i think i also want to point out i think our career for relief is a little bit difficult crafting a prayer for relief in this case because i think technically it's this case should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the other hand i think the circuit court was right in technically this is all governed by statute and what mr mauer filed in this case was outside of that when it's supposed to be governed by statute so i think it's a i just want to bring it to the court's attention so that we didn't sort have to go back at to small claims cases or cases up to the two hundred thousand dollar that would requirement for judicial him anyway it would not be a substantial burden on the courts there's some claim don't apply and it will burn being put on i guess the trial counsel on this issue saying well paragraph six applied he did neither paragraph six the only thing that could be it was even close to putting it the defendant on notice case says that said purported claim is not accompanied by an appropriate cost finder indigency updated so even even if you read their denial in the last most favorable to the state there's there's  the state's position here but the position was that federal case law requires full compliance we know that because kelly says if you don't post bond you're in the same position i don't believe that if the state