line three lines to just read ninety two drops from the number that's there twenty nine thousand to forty three that allows you forty three to forty three that's all that they check certain records but not all their records and then if they used other records just like the equation in any math class when we were in school if you change one of the components the numbers are going to check when and they used the wrong  wasn't even filed as a two fourteen on one of those files a motion to beg and the motions of a day did not have a single affidavit a single set of evidence attached to it that addressed anything other then the single issue that the district didn't receive notice from one or another of the county offices that's where all of the motions of vacated what and on that basis and on the basis that these numbers didn't make sense to them when there must be some other at now or so as they should be vacating the motion also did not seek to stay didn't seek to freeze and seek to impose a constructive trust if all it sought was intervention and were filed there wasn't a single argument on those issues the argument was lack of notice by a constitutional officer either the court of the count later converted to a two fourteen zero one there was no allegation of fraud by any party no allegation no facts nothing to support for it and in fact in the pleading in the piece before this court they can see because the statute requires that the clerk of the county give the notice of the filing a complaint and the lack of notice by the state's attorney's office of the fact that there was to be a hearing on the submission of the compromise agreement was the inadequacy of right that's the way the statute appears to be written just so the letter notice boils down to the test which is again the last linchpin in the but themselves out of the right to believe case was clear that a petition to set aside one of the settlements cannot be based on the we can do better argument why the district council yeah argument made th attempt to distinguish the we can do better argument as it's not that we can do better we think we can when well if that's not better i don't know how else you define this is purely and simply a we would have done better we could have sharpened or we could have looked at the numbers better we could have run the computer calculator better and it's clear that that doesn't amount to an adequate representation on  the issue here is respect to the merits or its defense as i said a minute ago the only thing america race defense raised in the initial filing was the issue of notice therefore as a matter of law that's not america  not look at all of the numbers available to him and it in that in this in that situation isn't that an accurate representation when they're using faulty numbers and faulty  pleadings before the trial court was that there was a lack of notice and that remains the sole calling in the pleadings before this court is that there was a lack of notice and they tried to dress it up in the reply to my response to their of the judge wait there's a school districts can't make the settlement with the state's attorney to make the settlement but there's a check on that it's an exchange this is a one week area of the law work even though the school districts no have a little bit different situation it doesn't go that far ok because the supreme court has told us that the circuit court which is supposed to review sentence by the state's attorney to look for work in the adequacy of house because the the the formula that the legislature came up with that said even though the school districts have the right to intervene even though they have different interests we're going to let the still a true general as to the state's attorney before that litigation but the put limits on it and those are the limits that were and this is a classic example for i just want to leave you with this understand the school districts did nothing wrong big money within their limits big you know and did in the years a based upon an adequate representation he took their number of home prop they had nothing to do with reality and it cost the districts a lot of money and they didn't do anything wrong so doesn't section two fourteen zero one isn't out there to prove produce justice under the terms that's what section two fourteen zero one is all about different approach this isn't a matter of whether which could just get a better deal because it's a judgment call this wasn't this was a factual error on a central element of the allegation so it isn't just a matter of could we have gotten a better deal section two fourteen i want to bounce about what about the ends of justice and if this isn't the case that fits that for the school districts what is being absolutely nothing wrong has been there you've never heard that in the arguments looking at the wrong number on the wrong on the floor and once again some all these a fifty percent and after that you find out that there are they've lost hundreds of thousands of dollars so i think that if you look at the the what of contrary to my good friend mr rizzo's comments at face twenty three of the blue brief you'll find that the school district stated that the settlement agreement was inadequate quote as a direct result of the lack of the statutorily required notice  there was no balance in repayment worth dealing with an issue where money was already paid on the name reman and had begun to be distributed we were dealing with a situation where within a short period past thirty days they came in and wanted to review it you know the drone that was realistic it was i invited as a matter of fact it was raised by the school districts who advised the court that one of their first notices was that they learned that the payment had been made in affidavits you have to present the allegations they made an argument period the only evidence yury affidavits they presented at the motion to vacate work we didn't get notice just like they said in the blue brief the inadequacy was we didn't get notice not until i raised the argument in my response that says this isn't even a five to fourteen zero one and i say you never met any of the steps of five  filing in the required they come in and they try and say well there's all these numbers that we should have considered and there's all this calculations that we should consider i'm certain mr is or did not intend to making this representation but in the course record on a sure we're clear on something they want you to buy into the fact that if you do the work occupation all have to do is apply factor age a factor b and you get the magical number that's not true if you want to have three years  hearing which would have given them the ability to go into that we are at the end of the day the problem is that districts can't get beyond the fact that number one there was no jurisdiction for this court