specifically which requirements to define like well while the there's a requirement of due diligence the motions to dismiss attacked the lack of due the of the lack of due diligence alleged in the in the petition july on july twenty sixth of two thousand and eleven the case was settled and so proceeds were distributed less than a month later the the the due diligence requirement as  time before the judgment was entered more time in this case to investigate its claims it needs to show that there were factors beyond his control that prevented him from resisting the judgment in this case there vacate the judgment has to meet the standard for two four four four two fourteen zero one relief because more than three days the last in in fact seven months elapsed from the entry of the final judgment until the petition was filed and in actuality the plaintiffs went back to california and with which i would submit would be the people that even if any of this was was proper certainly if you want to reinstate the case you'd have to reinstate the california case they went back to because if you have to disregard the contents of the other here it's not destroyed it isn't even properly alleged there are no misrepresentations that have been alleged even if you if you read the petition there is no misrepresentation misrepresentation  one and maybe it's not chronologically the first one but the show i asked to do that indicates that although he doesn't name who took his identity to somebody to design him and now he comes to the proof the only people that are involved of mr oldest points is that those bank records have been available for some time right to the sentiment prior to the litigation right here in illinois and for whatever reason they're not new they may be newly discovered but must they be made his point is that due diligence really wasn't was an exercise to find him before you entered into the settlement up and i don't mean to interrupt that's ok your position is then if this is a an abuse of discretion issue be cause i mean she didn't take sound well she took argument but there was a lot of evidence so to speak in that has an opinion out there to you down some more or less stringent standard more discretion might be on there when that some point i don't need to debate the merits of the standard or even at this stage and the reason i don't discuss i question whether  never i mean and then the other side of the echoing issued might not and never addressed those issues but for the petition in a motion to dismiss which clearly can be brought before to no one we are we're not disputing that you know so she looks at the allegations in fraud occur is undeniable and on the budget at this stage mr boehner presented bogus bank records representing alleged security interests on a two point five who know original knowing that they were previously rejected overturned in a suit it's not an issue here but then there are some additional outstanding probably plus interest which would be a new original case but he says that's not the heart of this litigation is that all claims against the defendants in this regard for the fans for the families and that's what we're seeking at this so with that being said i i take issue with some of the misrepresentations made in this case  the law choir's that that petition meet the standards for relief under section two fourteen zero one four two four the petition to be granted and that that standard was not met and then there were a couple of things but that the trial court did not have the power to retain jurisdiction beyond thirty days after the injury of the final judgment what the what the court could do is the court could or the parties could do if the parties wanted to the court for those particular decisions is i mean arrested by both parties i'm sorry your dad would not be necessary here because here there's no question there's no issue about investing returns here there's no