facts that are either generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or capable of accurate and reading determination by resort to sources who the accuracy cannot reasonably be question courts of impute generally take judicial automatically generated report and emailing down to secretary of state thus this situation is likely to recur further if the squire does take judicial notice of this document we would ask that this court still reach this issue because the existence of these reports in the common law itself is an issue because it allows for the possibility that in the future an employee from the circuit office might open up this document and accidently send  unnecessary finding that the offense was game related because of reporting statute requires a determination to be made under section five dash seven time of the juvenile court act and act in turn requires that the court make  finding that the offense was game related to determine determination had to be made by the trial court for purposes of this reporting requirement when no such finding was made in this case in fact no mention of any gang related further it's possible that the release of the reports will lead to much wider dissemination of confidential important information this is because there's a conflict between the juvenile confidentiality statute and the vehicle reporting statute the vehicle reporting statute states that all juvenile court dispositions reported to the secretary of state shall proceed as if the cases have been adjudicated in traffic or criminal part of the session specifically then that's out that information reported relative to homicide if you will confidentiality statute on the other hand provide that all information reported relative to the bank shall be privileged and available only to secretary of state courts as officers it is this conflict between the statutes that allows for this dissemination of that information to the secretary of state may or an employee of the secretary of state may accidentally sent out this information only looking to the real code to figure out which information should remain private or first of all this issue is going away there's there's this it wasn't addressed below the court was not given the opportunity to correct the error if any there was a court and importantly the court was not given the opportunity to develop the record as as to any  the challenge actually here was taken by the service or not the trial for an end and it was taken after the entry the final judgment and for those reasons this action if it's not a judgment self nor is it in any way far to the final judgment and then importantly there's no proof that these reports were even actually sent because they were to that end when i first review this briefing i immediately noticed nothing in this record establishes that these reports were actually sent in exercising my due diligence i picked up the phone i called the champagne service clerk and attempted to inquire about this now unfortunately what happened was they were they did respond to me believe the next day but they actually instead of calling me back they e mailed me which i wasn't expecting and went to my spam and i didn't discover this and how i made a follow up phone call after receiving the defendant's reply brief here and that's when i first learned that these reports were in fact never actually s but instead they were apparently generated pursuant to the automated system implemented by the administrative office of the only courts and as an officer of the court i felt that i had a duty to bring this information to the court's attention and after reviewing the various case law and discussing the various options with my deputy director we decided to file the motion to take your dish will notice because the case all suggest that that that's appropriate where events outside the record disclose that there is no controversy or no controversy continues to exist and that seems to be exactly what happened here again not once i learned called the surface clerk of the second time learned that these reports were never even actually sent it just seemed like a motion to take your dish will notice was the most appropriate avenue for bringing that information to this court's attention now despite offering the definitive proof that that what he's so concerned about here that as the alleged erroneous filing of this report  providing a proof that that didn't actually happen he nevertheless insists and and continuing this litigation and is seemingly now arguing purely for the sake of argument and  move and disputing that this issue is moved to fight despite the fact that the reports have not actually even ever been sent to the secretary secretary of state the defendant now takes the position that the possibility exists that they could be so for i mean so first of all this this argument basically already was depended on numerous contingencies and now there's the additional contingency of the error of which they've complained actually been occurring in the first place so for so for the defendant having the complications with having his driver's license there's quite a few things that frankly have to fall into place so first of all the circuit an employee of the circuit clerk has to discover this these reports even though they this case is basically already concluded  as including that because a judge would have to suspend a license for a specific period of time which hasn't happened here and in any event that's that's that's limited to the defendant's twenty first birthday and he's committed he was committed to the department juvenile justice tells twenty first birthday so there's the additional contingency the having to actually get out early which apparently according to the objection to the motion has happened here and then in addition to all that he has to apply for a driver's license which nothing establishes that he has here and if all six of those things if the stars align against the defendant and all these contingencies fall into place under all those circumstances he might then experience difficulty getting a driver's license the idea that there's a barbara our supreme court recently explained that action taken by the circuit court or even if improper cannot be addressed through the appellate process where it's not part of the final judgment here this action is not part of the final judgment even if the clerk circuit clerks sent these reports the secretary of state which it did not and even if their reporting was statutorily authorized which frankly is unclear on this record in any event the action was taken after final judgment was taken by the circuit clerk not the trial court there's no court order to do this and the defendant didn't even raise this fellow so this is not a judgment nor is it in any way part of the final judgment and for that reason the states an initial position again is that this circuit court action is simply not subject to direct a review now and the event that this court finds your station and in the event that this core denies the motion to take additional notice any of it this issue is not actually even right for leg ation as as briefly discussed the moment ago the state has no proof here that the reports were sent because they were the state has no proof here that confidential information was disclosed to the secretary state or anyone else because it wasn't the sea has no proof here that a secretary of state employee has misread these reports as including a judicial finding of a qualifying offense qualifying circumstances license suspension or license suspension for a period of time all these findings are necessary for the defendants license to be suspended he's offered no proof that any of that has happened and frankly he's offered no proof that he's even apply for a driver's license and has some sort of complication in getting so again the idea if there's an actual controversy here is is simply absurd now even if there is jurisdiction even if this is not moved even if it somehow right right and in any event it's still way the defendant did out of jack to this nor did he raise it a post plea motion he didn't and because of that he didn't give the corps a chance to correct the there any and nor any very importantly he didn't develop the record about any of this we don't know the purpose of of these reports of the procedures involved we have no idea why they were generated here as the deputy service clerk champagne county explained in the letter it was his belief that these reports were are just automatically generated pursuant to the system implemented by the administrative office of the illinois course we have no information about any of this and for those reasons plus the fact the defendant's argument here is dependent on this like multi tiered statutory interpretation there's nothing that's plain player all of us about this air in this court in any event should not be reaching this as a matter of playing air here it would seem that the old it would seem that the proper avondale at well by this in the briefing i suggested that first of all the defendant ought to just call the circuit clerk and see i mean i guess frankly i don't even see that i don't see what the problem is that having these reports even in the record that seems to be no different than the report of proceedings where the the judge in the state talked about the fact that three of these have been dismissed you know one of one of the counts he pled guilty to i mean these reports are limited to the common law wrecker i mean what the concern here is is frankly very confusing to me but to the extent that there is some particular concern and again it appears that the circuit clerks position is that they don't have the authority to remove these documents that are automatically generated pursuant to the you know office of the illinois senate and ministry of office of illinois court system then it would seem that he the next step would be if he's really so concerned about these you know and i guess you know the other thing i want to point out is so that the defendant here is asked basically for like a three tiered remedy now among those first of all he requests that this war order the secretary of state to destroy any record of  these reports well the reports were never actually sent they were never actually received so they can't destroy them and in any event they offer no authority for the proposition that this court can order a constitutional officer and somebody who is not even a party to this litigation to take any action and additionally they also asked they also asked for an order requiring the trial court to notify the secretary of state that the report's run off right well again they were never even sent so to give such a remedy would essentially create the very problem that they're so concerned about here it would it would notify the secretary of state of the existence of these reports which is the very thing that they that has given rise to all this litigation all this briefing the motions and impossible to undo the damage it becomes a public record and that is why this is such an important issue in this case is that we cannot undo the damage in this case now to say friends of bad virus should be extended  there is actually no gravity in the trial court because these reports were generated two days after sentencing there was no indication on those reports that defense counsel was aware of those notices and there is no reason for defense counsel to go down to the circuit courts office and review years ago just as ryan has noted that insistence on confidentiality is one of the tender concern for the welfare of the child to hide his youthful errors and bury them in the graveyard of the forgotten past while the state is insistent that there is that's what was the judicial there was if you're ascribing this circuit clerks collateral decision to one except these generated forms and then to do something with them i don't disagree that's part of a process which we can call the judicial process but it's not something which it's not a mistake by they didn't stick by the trial court it's a mistake by an independent elected official who has duties that go far beyond what