and the issue of rescued judicata should not apply in this instance the may thirtieth two thousand and thirteen order from the cook county circuit court court granting leave for your petitioners to amend was not a final appeal order the case of hernandez vs prick in which we cited two contains language dealing with that issue and spoke about how being granted leave to file an amended complaint was not absolutely finally settled court went on to say it does appear there was no duty to education on the merits because there was no final adjudication the district court should determine if the cases were parallel and if properly applying the colorado river doctrine they may have had time to decide  even if the court would assume your theory is you get to split your various claims between that and all the different cases not my theory is that it's a totally different claim and considering that the other ones had been resolved in the circuit court we had highs typical in cook county the law claims would get assigned out so i believe what they felt was better off at that time was just a file within the lot of vision or as we did in the federal and federal court could you address the defendant's reliance and the district judges reliance on whittaker and henry were we deal with these kinds of counter claims involving the debt collection i know i did not met due to plaintiffs counsel having cancer at that time was not was not a final it was not a final order there was just a deadline the order didn't specify any consequences if the deadline was of met it was just a deadline twenty eight days what right then it ripens into a final judgment if the deadline lapses with no action well i think saying to them but i'm sorry and that's just a legal effect if you don't if you don't meet the deadline judgment in that situation twenty eight days of missing a twenty eight day deadline is th counsel would know a bit more about that he was in the litigation did your clients file for bankruptcy  so you don't know anything about bankruptcy filings and whether these rico coins were identified as assets i don't think any bankruptcy plan has been filed to my knowledge no proceeding concerning the same matter in federal court finally it was proper for the new court to apply the colorado doctrine instead of dismissing case out right what we believe should have happened respectfully as a district court should have stayed the case  and to put it lightly i will we believe the court was doing respectfully was guessing that a finding in favor of respondent was inevitable again we believe that the court should should have decided if the cases were parallel and not set there and let that time be asked again that the case very well might have been able to been adjudicated why isn't that issue mooed this point given the final judgment in the state because we believe the court could have taken it up within that time it may be but now there's a final judgment in the state courts right that's correct but at the time that that consequences in the parallel litigation that's correct but again that matter had never been resolved in cook county it's a separate matter that's as as much as i can argue on th that you cannot only really litigate matters that have already been litigated you can't raise matters that invalidate or affect the underlying judg that's blackletter hornbook law it's reciting in case after case it forms the basis of the would or could decision and marty and all of the other cases that we've cited to this court which compelled if they wanted to bring the rico claim they had to do it as a counter claim or defense in the foreclosure case which proceeded to a judgment adverse to that in two thousand and twelve and they had to bring that as a counter claim or defense in the guaranty action that was not done what they did was they attempted to raise those claims before the court the court said you may replayed your rico claim within twenty eight days for reasons a really don't appear in the record and there's been an assertion that it was because prior counsel was ill with cancer but for reasons that really don't appear in the record and i don't know that it really matters what those are they didn't do it they waited for a period of years there were several intervening bankruptcies this isn't in the record this is a clear asked the question never once was a rico claim scheduled there were two chapter eleven bankruptcy is filed by card legal and the first was filed during the pendency  was also dismissed by clarke and leland three subsequent personal bankruptcies were filed by mr bach and i believe this is lee filed one bankruptcy as well never was a schedule is an asset that it were discharged as granted in any of those didn't refile the rico claims and they waited and waited and waited until after the state court had made its decisions then attempted to obtain leave to refile those complain the rico complaint or to file another amended complaint and using the lawyer a lookout in the factors judge taylor the circuit court judge said this is untimely there's no excuse for this this was this is not in accordance with the court's orders the excuses you're offering me are not good then here we are it's sort of unfathomable to me that after the first district appellate court's decision is issued saying that the judgment of foreclosures ratio caught on all of those which as the court's aware was my argument really from day one the judge dirk's durcan never bought on and if he were here and i could ask him a question i would say why didn't shoot just why didn't you just buy that argument but he didn't and maybe it was because he was concerned about well very sings are going to be concerned about stepping on the first district it was maybe he didn't believe in being merits of of that play maybe they thought it was too weird that a judge in the foreclosure case against a real against an entity could be binding against the guarantors we don't really know that we don't have to guess and second guess that because the first district sa were the guarantors named as defendants in the foreclosure action you know and that in many respects is perhaps the novelty of this decision there wasn't a lot of precedent kandor the court there wasn't a lot of precedence before this when this decision came down i really thought it was important that this case be published because this is important guidance in other cases i filed a motion to publish and it was denied but that nevertheless is the law of this case rule twenty three says it's still binding precedent illinois supreme court rule twenty three it's still binding precedent it's between these parties and court is really powerless to change that it's also powerless to change the huge body of black letter law that says you can't attempt to do in directly after a judgment is cast what you should have done directly to invalidate that judgment all of the decisions that have been cited by the appellants in support of reversal these were all raised in the court below all rejected by judge dirk and there's really nothing in the argument here that should persuade this court to carve an exception to these rules the cases in specifically the hernandez case which counsel was referring to that granted someone commission or that found the race to be cut it did not attach because in the complaint was authorized to be filed doesn't apply because the time limits here were not honored  and secondarily there were subsequent orders that expressly rejected the right to file the pleated this case is squarely within that and even if you even if you want to say that there are some carve out that could be made from the general body of ratio to cut a law this case is squarely within the brain or decision which i've cited in in in the brief which says that the courts and that's independent of the judgments of foreclosure judgments on the guarantees that is another reason to find the ratio to cut it attaches because the very rico claim that is an issue in this class was proposed as count ten of an amended pleading which was denied so for those reasons we believe that the