of land that other people want to annex to the village of mony now there is little question that it is unfair that somebody else tells you what to do with your way there is however no question what happened was is that with out any notice to these landowners it petition it was fall that is the statutory procedure the petition gives final notice and then goes out to may fourth and then the issue that came up was one of the objectors and one of four residence on this entire group of gravity that registered to was filed by her and others after she reduced their people but i guess my main question what i'm really having a hard time understanding in your argument  that if we operate under under the argument that you're advancing that petition would have been no good and how could you have determined majority of the letters if that target moves to the hearing t get it signed but after the sign matter it's filed after we move forward then ten other people register to vote my filing is based on what was true as of the date i filed how can i mean it now it's no longer any good i don't understand how you're ever going to have something that is correct at the time of filing because that's necessary at the time it's final it has to be legally correct at that point if what you say is true that you have to look at what happens after its final what our position in you to be sufficient at the time that it's fine if it is including which is supported by math updated which need to be for the affidavit maybe five any time up to the point of the property must be good if it's not that's one of the objections to be raised well in this particular case both before the matter who want to hear it was determined the trust distributed out the holding of that one parcel property to the nine beneficial interest holders they have now made in the arm the balance of the number over the majority are pretty onerous in equitable really the pleading was incorrect now because there were not a majority of the owners the court then went on and determined all owners that get upset the balance will run the perimeter on the property and could have opted out under the statutory procedure but it did not they you can analyze anything that involved the validity of the issue in an objection to visit the liberty of the petition they have almost lead you to the conclusion that you have to look at the state of facts that exist at the time o we're not looking at that registration so we don't need to have an election in the territory to be an x the appellate court said no you wrong you have to consider that person who voted in the interim and therefore your decision to not make your order about not hearing an election in the territories wrong and there were first that trial court's decision to happen souter that holder they had along with i think th seven one two in the following three sections in every case in which the electoral majority is me for two that's dropped the link to the petition as it was filed with the court thus the language itself  statute says a written it titian signed by the majority of the electors shall be filed with the court seven one three states a valid objection is that the bit titian is requisite number of electors there we submit that the absence of language stating that the electoral majority should exist on the hearing day is not silen on the question of when the electoral majority is to exist the statute is not silent the statutory for is in at least three instances to look at the electoral majority existing when the petition this is filed we submit that the absence of language stating that the majority is to be counted at that hearing date denotes a legislative intent that says there is neither requirement north already to count the elect and it is true that the objectors and we read the significance of that case differently but that was decided by this court and it is important in the reading here of the court first the appellate court first determine then court proceeded to say it would not permit the petitioners to remove territory afterwards to remove those additional landowners who had appeared between decisions are important and in looking at the reading of the statute at the legislative intent the springfield decision that was decided by the court of appeals in the fourth district in one nine almost identical to seven one two here in the bell case the supreme court interpreted the language under seven one eight that's a different statutory procedure under that procedure the petition was on the date the petition was filed subsequent events were not relevant to that terminations and the court looked at the statute instead this language is drafted in the present tense contiguity is to exist more date however there is no suggestion that the subsequent amendment of the statute means that the supreme court's reading of the statute when the statute was originally adopted was incorrect and there is no case supported in in support of that proposition so we submit that the supreme court's reading of the statutory language in the bill will case is very instructive on the fact that this court is due that the legislature intended that example on that hearing date and we submit that at that time the affidavit would still have required under the other holdings of the prior decisions to refer to the date that the petition was station provision that the court was looking at in that case the court was specifically required to order an election in the annexation territory that makes that statute very different from the one that we're evaluating in this case however it makes that procedure the equivalent of another procedure contemplated by our very statute seven one two so for example if the municipality had a different statutory scheme scheme altogether and that when the legislature one of the electors to have a role after the hearing date the legislature knew how to require that the electors have s i want to make a point about our fairness that has come up on two occasions the fairness of people having being told how their land should be used and also the fairness of  the right to vote this was stressed in the objectors brief and i have to agree that the right to vote is the crucial right and people in this country throughout the world have in fact suffered and died for that right  vote but in this country the right to vote is prospected so this elector who first registered to vote a resident of the area the first registered to vote in the middle of two thousand and nine was not there by deprived of the likewise having registered to vote after the petition was filed she was not in the eligible class of a walk to risk as defined by the statute at the time the petition occurred as this petition would not have been filed because the petition has to be filed by the jury it's so we would have been looking at a completely different and exclusion procedure if something had proceeded with respect to this territory i don't know what all parcels territory what the record does show is that at the time the petition was filed there with real actors to move whom signed the petition one who of whom did not and eventually became an object or and then subsequently there was another resident who registered to but we do not have any record of how many people lived in that directory clearly not heavily populated because it is for the most part except for some some developed land on farmland but you have the response another perception fairness case in which the second district had created what's called what would they were calling the appendage rule and the appellate court said that because the owners of land with people the so called appendage in this area objected to the an exemption the majority objected therefore the appendix would be carved out and the supreme court said that was not  this appendix rule in the district in the circuit court the supreme court said that was unacceptable for three reasons and three principles number one the legislature alone has the authority to allow or require alteration of municipal boundaries secondly the court's function is to determine whether the petitioners have complied with the procedures in the statute and thirdly the court lacks any discretion to determine which will constitute a sufficient true electors were or were not owners the petition itself yeah those signatures and i don't have to spend all your time on this because i can go back there and compare signatures as he talked about in the full value case from last year so this any issue going to the validity of the petition is to be analyzed those issues may not exist at the time and the family of the petition they may come up they may not deal with the electors or the owners they may deal with any issue to go back to to then have to say well wait a minute if an issue going to the validity came up two days after residential area both north and south of these two parcels the houses on each so i've just been is that based upon everything that we've discussed today that th