until early august i think it was so some forgot office but there are least four efforts i don't recall right this moment how many but there were efforts in the meantime to achieve serv served for calling them up and finally they plugged into the system got a briefing schedule and  at that time as is shown in the record we were unable to her anything from the tax systems to record we still don't have anything from them i did a quick affidavit in support of response to their motion in which i outline what it's not not here's here's the crux of the shoes that ultimately choice court seemed to take the position that none of these things i'm telling you happened at all i didn't see it and i thought it was a pretty simple factual matter and it's i never got really a direct attack on what i thought were the factual matter it was simply a matter of fact of how so it was more it seem to be more a question of not not my veracity but the form and i think the form is appropriate it may not best a lot of things i've done the last forty in his opinion with no opportunity to respond why did it take so long there were two or three questions like that that we could have easily responded to but were not able to without having a it the briefing and i filed my affidavit protect systems and i think there was one other thing but i contacted the court office and i asked if we i filed a motion for leave to file these apathy and i was the word that came back to me was don't worry about it now we'll pick care of it at the here and the hearing never happened i don't know how it is in other counties but it seems more and more that our good just simply don't really want to have hearings in the circumstances that it's created summary issues i understand they have  discretion to do that but it seems to me that when the court asked west in his order that there should be a hearing should be some opportunity there is some case law it's not directly on point but it certainly suggests that when there are factual questions like this is perfectly happy so the judge that would have been one of them that i asked leave to file late except i thought i thought he was referring to something and was simply sort of the meaning my efforts and on the second or third reading i was struck made this this isn't what he thinks it this is from another  it doesn't relate to what he was speaking out as we got down to that what ever you think about my efforts or anything else about this case i think we  reasons that this could happen i think i i don't know what happened but that's not the purpose of the order it's not to leave you speculate as to why a judge may or may not have done something whether there's something th is clearly obvious and off base is this where you're actually quoting something t  law saying that in a case such as this there has to be here the hearing was or was set by the court i don't recall counsel asking for a hearing that the hearing was s by the court in a documentary and then was vacated by by the court the one thing is that there is a couple of things having to address that i think are very very important here number one the address oh plaintiffs counsel op was incorrect and that's that there's no it was an incorrect address but that brings up what i call the return of the returns which as to the lack of documentation here the the returns on service were sent to that address and according to chris douglas came back by us mail is not deliverable now that the problem with that is that twice chris returns that are not in the record and we don't know where they are have them twice in her hands once when she sent them then they came back what happened to them we do not know what happened then they are not and why weren't they filed as far as the affidavit oh chris douglas chris douglas talks about the fact that in the neighborhood of twenty twenty attempts were made  to get service on defend it talks about a long period of time this is a fact this is one of three case this is fact intensive and giving a nonspecific affidavit such as that is insufficient worthy were there any attempts in january we say that there were couldn't have been any in january february or march there were up until april twenty seventh of two thousand and twelve because about four and a half months nothing nothing was done we don't know if their work just because there's a summons in april twenty seventh just because it's a summons on june five doesn't mean there were any attempts we don't know when those because this is a war of repeat motion that is very very important the other issue on address is that from the very beginning even construction think both of them talk about the fact that the plate of new from the beginning the location of the defendant a lot of these were three cases as  have to do with finding the defense in this case and in pin riding in smith it was known from the beginning it still took eight months two days in this case to get service in seven days when it was given to someone else seven days the cases and then rice met talked about the fact that knowing that knowing the address and the fact that there was a short period of time when the last attempt was a short period of time by another entity by another process server shows that the defendant was amenable but it still took eight months and today there are also in the in the brief they also talk about having talked to chris douglas for the first time i think they say since this process began i believe is the word on february one two thousand and thirteen that six months after services had met they talk to cox nothing there was no communication prior to that with chris douggs even though there were no returns they'd receive in return there was nothing the phone number and the fax number specifically when was service not i i think it's probably more appropriate to focus on service but i but i think that that goes from yes i think i think that was considered by the court i think it had to be considered by the court because it's all part of the delay in service well put another way isn't i linger buying from the last possible  finally i think it is i think it is but above all why should it be fair to them it's always a factor again i'm not saying and maybe i didn't make this clear i'm not saying that you factor in that it was on the last day i'm saying that  until six months after service it means of making certain that the return may expect that not making sure the return is filed with the court does not discharge that d i have met much the same sort of position in the questions continue to be raised which i cannot appropriately answer i he says we don't know nothing was done while i know things were done and i could expound further on them and develop further evidence from chris douglas and others but the fact of the matter is when when they filed their motion then it's incumbent on them to  get the scheduling date to go ahead and file the briefs and all that that pushed things back quite a bit in all of that time we were unable to contact chris she has given me an explanation hasn't been since yesterday i got this piece of mail that was sent to one of two west main instead of one two three now i do it myself one zero two east main which was the aggressor she would have had in her record and one two three west main where we now are house that block had several similar problems with other mailings where my bank for instance just didn't contact me after they came back again that's not a record but it's something that we we could live with now and i guess i  i don't know whether the judge was trying to single me out that equates this for a