violent persons petition filed against him is one of the first people to be detained i temporarily and then subsequently a judge by a jury to be sexually violent the trick in this case and required that these petitions be filed before the date of discharge from the department of correction it is a very technical question an issue as to what the word before me before there is no question as to what that word mean this before would mean in this instance october eighth one thousand nine hundred eight until all the way before that to the big bang or creation circuit court of will county there was short brief hearings up there it did go to the third district on an issue the third district denied it at that point i believe and those are all in the was clear record clear through this was i mean as clear as the fact that obviously there be a file stamped and i believe file stamp copy is at least a part of the record i suppose decision of this court where the this court did excuse the exercise of due diligence by ampat a company that was being sought to get a wage garnish but wage garnishment in the community first credit union case as against impaired was in a possibility because federal rule federal law did not allow for the wage garnishment that was defaulted so the court court said while they did not act in due diligence and in defending their claim in defending this issue but it's an impossibility anyway it's a legal one possibility so we excuse the due necessary paperwork within twenty four hours of mr demeanors admission to the psychiatric unit and they did not they just didn't do so on appeal this court stated that the state failed to file the their final judgment which is the legislative judgement that's how much time he should have and your honor nothing with him so i believe at least i bet it's the case that we're talking about substantial justice i guess what you're saying is there's because i believe that the they said i think that the instances that would come up can be different you know obviously we're here now in two thousand and seventeen if if the timing were different we're here ten years from now my argument would be the same that in this instance mr morris is looking at a possible life time as this court everybody here knows a possible lifetime so there's no requirement that he act with diligence what i i don't know if i want to go that far your honor but i would say that the court can in its and its discretion exercise that judgment and as the court sits year reviewing to know both of the circuit  court this court can exercise its judgment its discretion in the light most favorable to mr morsi because we are here on the state's motion to dismiss and so the court needs to review that in that light and i believe that in that in reviewing this in the light most favorable mr morris i think that can include saying we will excuse some of this diligence at least to the point that we can send this back to the circuit or and have can further  hearings hasa present evidence as to what happened if there needs to be a man amendments to his petition whether there's any sort of ineffective assistance issues that might be r these are serious issues they lead to his possibly lifetime commitment at least for the last eighteen some odd years committed in a fashion that october ninth his date of release won't overnight there is some support and further pleadings that he actually was outside of big money correctional center but he was a free man and the state filed his petition that day and brought him back there is support of that in the record at least his writings and his law office there is support of that i know the states and raise an issue with regard to enter a detention of power wherein  it's are you by the state is very very different from the case here power was an issue where the respondent refused to fox to sign his mandatory supervised release for he's the one that caused the delay he's the one that caused the issue and he's the one that tried to benefit from the issue so the supreme court said this is an absurdity to say the legislature would not assume an absurdity like this that to allow the respondent to basically play fast and loose against the state timeframes runners in this case the state new the times the state can do the day say they want to have their cake and eat it too the state of the record would show that at the time the state knew that it was the general policy of the department of corrections to if somebody use release date was on a weekend or a holiday to cut to release them the friday before the day before it was a holiday on a on a general week that the states evaluation was on july twenty first one thousand nine hundred eighty about two and a half months before his release date and at least from my review of that evaluation there's a little marking on of the says received nine runners this is a very bizarre situation i can't deny this is a situation where like i said we're everything perfect in this world then we would not be dealing with this now it would have been dealt with possibly by this overcome these sort of drastic instances where now we have somebody who by all intents and purposes in a reading of to mere he should not be  do is over twelve years late under twelve to fourteen no one see and secondly because of this legally the petition itself is legally insufficient in every relevant respect first  responded conflates the due diligence requirements under two fourteen zero one with two fourteen zero one see time on this those are two different issues and  directs that prevents him from raising the claim neither of those exceptions are present here as your honor pointed out responded was aware of the factual predicate for his claim ever since court there did consider a petition that was filed two days after the two your time limit but there's no indication that the parties raised to fourteen zero one see in that case because the court does not discuss it as we point out in our brief equitable the fact that he was aware of this claim is proven by the fact that you raised it in his two thousand and four hideous if you support this complaint further demonstrating that there is no equitable reason for excusing the exercise of due diligence here in fact given the circumstances granting responder relief would require a total disregard for the due diligence require sight and that fact distinguishes it mediately from people versus tamir in which the court construed the mental health code explicitly construed it strictly in the respondents favor here petitioner states that the record shows that the attorney general the people were aware of that petitioner was going to be discharged early but the only evidence he cites for this fact is his own final year honors as to the as to the notion that due diligence requirements should be waived here because the out of raw equitable concern that judgment is unfair unjust  it's quite to the contrary respondents civil commitment is entirely just it is consistent with legislative intent behind section fifteen it is pursuant to a jury's verdict after a trial which was fun it was represented by mirror there are different views and different looks at these commitments statutes but mere does have reference to safeguarding the public if they don't just this or this court didn't just blow that off there is at least  exercise that ability that it reverse the trial court's granting that state's motion to dismiss and remand this back for hearings on mr morris as to fort