become a right for adjudication until thirty days after it is filed in order to give the state the opportunity to respond but what i have one question before we get to the multiple  on the petition occurs before the merits of the case or even reached well then if it doesn't have merit why does the defendant want to have to go back what would be the basis i'm just trying to understand logic of the benefit of it going back is that the defendant will be able to amend his petition to make if it's for example if it's if this court decides to for new proceedings or dismiss it without prejudice to have the benefit of being able to amend the petition to remedy any errors and refile it will address a with the realities what would he be able to amend it to make it meritorious that's my next question i mean based on the cases reidy and another one he can always file another fourteen one if he comes inefficient for us to remain on this i think the problem with that is that this is this is an issue this is in the barge or in the bigger picture of this issue is that when you take the facts of what occurred here is that the question occurs before the merits or even reached and all further cases from this point forward and for my own client the question the judge should never have even reached the merits because he didn't have the authority to do so because the petition was not right for adjudication will is in this case really different than all the other cases because in this case the state did receive notice the petition was filed i forget the exact date but once it was by all the it was placed on the court's scale and then when it was in the words calendar for the first date the state was present the petition was presented to the court and then the court assigned a date well after thirty days so this isn't really like any of the cases services process they had the actual notice in this case but i don't think we know that they had actually done is because it's not clear from the record that one that the service was ever effectuated because roll one zero five five talk about the actual knowledge they had actual knowledge of the petition because the state attorney that stood in front of the court is an agent for the principal and they were informed that want to cry and while he or tito one petition and but the the issue here is that whether the state waived their service of process since that that thirty days had never begun to occur even the trial court even had the track even though the trial court placed it on the call that thirty days did not begin until the service was complete well you're saying there is no service when you have their orders is that what you're saying you're saying is the only way to have the service in this case is through one o five that actual notice would never take the place of sending someone something in the mail well i think that's that's what these bargain prado make clear is that you have ways to serve it you fourteen zero one petition and ways for those that service to be effectuated and cried also recognizes that a very efficient way of remedying this problem in future cases is to simply have the state's attorney say in open court method when the record reflects they have service they have service because of actual knowledge i think the issue here is is basically what's coming into play is where you're starting the the beginning date for a period of thirty days and the problem is there needs to be a bright line consistent across the system rule for when that thirty day period began to see a bright line rule when there's the actual notice to a party when they're sick well known as to a party the thirty day rule i mean the problem here is that the right here in this case the record silent it's not that the state's attorney stood up and said we acknowledge that we've received a copy of the petition it's not that the state's attorney even spoke on the record at all we don't we know that there were states attorney was present in court but we don't know if they were given a copy of the petition we don't know if they actually received a copy of the petition through the mail because there was no return receipt requests if you back to the first question how do you know that he didn't send this certified mail or return receipt request well  first of all right over five explains that service is not complete that it must be done through certified mail return receipt requested and certify and it's not going to wait right after two methods certified  in that he didn't place it under certified mail i don't we know that he didn't indeed i will i think because he a put it in the may he said he put it in the institutional mail system which is similar to putting record is not clear because the the proof of service simply said has been placed in the institutional mail system and did not specify for certified or registered mail because it silent on that we can't then assume something greater in order to send a document through certified or registered mail some further action needs to take place more than just placing a document or letter in a mail system and here there is no evidence that that more you know above and beyond action took place and so where that didn't have problems come from the fact that there's a role reversal here because if the roles were in the right place what would ordinarily happen if there was improper service is the state's attorney would come forward and say hey there's improper service if a rule with money against them they could come in and say there's a proper service and therefore the system be done over this is to be reversed or something like that but the roles are reversed here and so there's nobody coming forward and showing that there's been improper service you're saying the record sounds but this really there would be no vehicle for you to come in and insert it because it's outside the record so it's not before where's the evidence that that this that the service was  issue i think the problem is that where there's because the default here is to send it through regular mail going beyond that default you have to show that something more was done here because institutional mail system and not its place you know in the institutional mail system with instructions that it be sent through certified registered mail presumably something he would have to pay extra for in any case so that there must be you know that there would be some evidence in the record had he taken those further steps but there isn't and because of that we can't read into the record and assume that he did properly serve the stay well can't we do it in this case that's another grea rule i just saw the where there is evidence of service i mail we know that's clear and where the circuit court clerk receives that petition and where the record  affirmatively discloses the actual notice that the dismissal after thirty days until all of those facts is not a violation of the service provision that was past the thirty days once the actual notice appeared the facts in this case are are different than every other one because the judge specifically set the case for thirty days after the petition was presented in open in other words the court said the trial court said this is beyond the two years so i'm just growing up and it was before any notice right well that's i thin suggested that there was we heard her petition the woman and that was really kind of the heart of this position is that here this person actually had a mirror for his petition in the courts it will i'm not going to hear it starts that thirty day period begins for every single petition regardless of marriage and there needs to be a clear rule on that regardless of marriage there can't be a decision that's made there can't be separate roles for well this morning your honour's may please the court michele from all this time for the people of the state of illinois before i get into the body of the argument i just want to correct two misstatements that were made by my opponent she said that the was never served notice and there is absolutely no evidence of record that the state has never served notice there was evidence of record that the defendant placed his petition in the institutional mail and as this court likely recognized that evidence of record i ambiguous as to whether it was sent regular mail or certified or registered mail counsel has agreed that the record isn't clear and therefore under well established rules of a public procedure the defendant cannot says exactly that it says it says that the define other m w the respondent was never served with notice that he appeared in court on the first day at which time he was given the petition the delinquen written the minor respondent was arguing that her determination of delinquency was roy because her father hadn't been served so she was trying to do exactly what the defendant in this case is because there they basically are allowing the petitioner to step in the shoes of the state for the improper was that it was simply thirty days before her the case have been docket i don't think and that was the second the statement that i wanted to make i certainly know i was the the prosecutor in vincent and it was never thirty days did they ask because the court dismissed it within seven days of it appearing on its docket that was the problem and i think rightly so as as you your honor pointed out before this was a petition that had potential merit that the state didn't could have within those thirty days raved to the time when this issue and the judge precluded that opportunity by so responded dismissing the petition within that thirty days and i think your honor is exactly right that that was the concern of the illinois supreme court but this court improper because he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court both subject matter and personal when he files that petition and when the petition is dismissed for failure is state a cause of action as a matter of which is this case the other guy i don't know this this decision i don't know how you did say it has nothing to do with service because in it and this is law that says that it was not the the petition her petition was the right word to cation because only seven days yes but it says the circuit court dismissal short circuited the proceedings and deprive the the the whether the noticed by mail was proper this court long ago held that rule one o five b should be liberally construed to promote justice that substance is preferred over for  actual notice is the goal of the rule and that exceptions to the world can be made including mail service where its purpose is achieved that rise in public taxi service versus air ten in i'm sorry i don't think is there is is the defendant or getting anything by not arguing the merits of the titian as the people raised in their brief absolutely by by not arguing that his petition had any merit he can see that it had no m with one o five b when actual notice has been had is elevating form over substance sending back a petition that is patently meritless that had not be amended in any way shape or form to state a viable claim would be an extreme and extraordinary waste of judicial resources when that ruling has no impediment on the defendant filing a subsequent petition if he comes up with reasonable grounds this is this is truly form over substance on a host of levels i would just like to point out that the same district which cases the defendant relies on the second district has also issued opinions that affirms that defect and proper service of the two of the two fourteen zero one petition on the state does not prevent the court from issuing a ruling which only affects the defendant who filed the two fourteen  that improper service that they don't even know what their position is and she's asking this court to follow the second district and they've issued contradictory opinions they dish of contradictory opinions in terms of what the proper remedy there are three different women he said they're saying that should be followed these decisions are poorly reasoned they allow a defendant to interpose an objection that doesn't belong to him they squander judicial resources by requiring remand and scarily enough they they would acceptance of their logic means that every two fourteen zero one petition that has been ruled on in this state hundred seventy nine and the many sections seventy two years before that that were not properly served i avoid because they never became right for for all of these reasons the people of the state of illinois respectfully request this court to affirm the dismissal of the defendant's patently meritless petition and to reject the authority cited by my opponent thank the decision in this case will have any impact is one that needs to be in view from from the larger picture as well as the narrow holding of this case the problem is that this will impact across the board the whole system rar made clear with that focus on this thirty day period that the state has to respond without knowing without having a solid date for it to know when that thirty day period begins the ruling in law current does it w prado and the other and made and make clear that they see as attorney can't simply wave service by merely appearing and not saying anything on the record they've even there has to be some affirmative waiver of service something that did not occur in this case well you know what the he has to deal with it again well as opposed to allowing the defendant to come back into court if he can figure out some other claim that he has which he could bring separately as a new to what my opponent said there are implications on a defendant for filing multiple petitions well if he would have found a five the filing petition after petition after petition he can be liable for sanctions monetary sanctions and you know for money that you know that's not legal very well on a different subject ok to fourteen to one normally requires that the petition be filed within two years correct and it also generally forget but anyway then we have this other body case law that says when when the petitioner is alleging a void judgment then that establishes the requirements but in this case we have a petitioner who filed a petition and mailed the petition to the state but what is void about the court's decision here when it dismissed m petition because the petition the ruling affects mr opac it does not affect the state it negatively impacts him where is anything here that actually would excuse the normal requirements for  judgment here and that's not really developed there is no void judgment here is there well no i think that's the problem is that again the question is moving away from what's really at issue here but you have to you have to argue don't you somehow this thing is void and that's why we should be considering it in the first instance i don't think so because i think that is sadly going to vacate of a judgment i think but i think that the that is again moving the issue beyond where it is but at this point all i'm going to end with but you you you you've said there's no merit to this petition right so i don't understand how we should send ok and if you can't show it you simply can't show that because you can see it in your brief that there's no merit because we defeat the whole idea of behind four one the whole idea is to get before the court the judgment that was improperly entered yes that that's what you think the purpose that you fourteen no one serves but when you look at baarn and i think that this case is the logical foreign in that they view the supreme court broke this decision that specifically stated and the result of it is that petitions regardless of merit if they're ruled on before that thirty days is over they go back and this is the next logical outgrowth of it the thing that now needs to be decided is any time that you have a time limit you need to know when that time begins and the question here is that need don't know because the state was not served we don't know when that time when i think i need an affirmative i wager i think a rule would be that the thirty day period begins to run when either there is evidence  basically i mean the issue here is that the problem that becomes is that for at least on the facts of this case they might appear in court simply by you know they're being physically present without some affirmative egg knowledge do is affirmatively waive service so what needs to have been is that there just needs to be some affirmative action by the state something that didn't occur in this case because the record is there's no knowledge of it from the state no