case counsel is correct this is a driving on suspended case i believe what was failed you mentioned earlier is that this is a strict liability case which means that the time of the traffic stop that is the subject of this case the defendant was either suspended or privileges were suspended or she was not based on current case on the state of illinois based on state statute the defense of the plaintiff simply has to prove the village simply has to present two arguments and in the two burdens of proof on or one burden of proof on two elements of the charge the charge is driving on licenses then what that means is we have to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway and at the time that she was doing so she was suspended and the day that this trial we did just that we presented a certified abstract that was stipulated to by the defendant's attorney and by the defendant and we presented credible evidence of officer he the arresting officer that  the same time that is absolutely correct the only information we have throughout the record with respect to that particular document is that it was purportedly dated approximately one year after the traffic stop i  and i will address that argument in a moment at the time it appears based on that asset that it once dated the abstract was dated one year later but there was no other information on that abstract purportedly and lead to this particular suspension it's still irrelevant it's a strict liability charge of whether she was suspended at the time of the stop or not suspend it's under under the only vehicle code it is an official evidence of what's on the abstract now granted they submitted an abstract as well but offered no additional testimony no at for the evidence to explain how it was removed the court found that we we had met our burden at that point we had nothing shifted i'm not suggesting that i know counsel had suggested that earlier today i'm not suggesting that the burden shifts i just that the village had submitted enough evidence at that that particular piece of evidence was stipulated to that day i would not agreed that it showed that she does not suspend it on that day what it showed was a year after the trap except that the information had been removed it didn't show that she suspension and one says there's no evidence of suspension and the village also presented the credible testimony of asa he yeah and in the offices maybe but you've got these two after hours just before you today if i could just quickly address them the argument that we presented in our brief reporting the record being incomplete that aspect is not part of this record today and it is clear under illinois law the lawyers from court has addressed this particular issue and it's the helensburgh presented sufficiently complete record of the proceedings that trap they have failed to do stuff but this is our record clear enough to say they're one shown suspension and we've got them on the other one that we don't have showed no suspension is not  there was a defense docket presented its reference you know we got references to it from argument in the judge's ruling in your thing else in this suspension evidence no evidence of suspens that we still have the defense attorney in closing argument stipulating to this expansion being in place right to do so we still have the credible testimony of the officer and we have an incomplete record before the court that we don't have that document for for this panel to review we don't have this that that document that's part of this record and based on the standard of review i think that that's a critical critical issue because you're not doubting the transcript of i'm not doubting the transfer the presented by counsel again i thank you that argument has been weighed i think that what with her case is very clear on that that was cited in our brief it was not the really knew of this relationship was the defendant she was there on ten or eleven separate occasions standing in front of judge mind in never disclosed this it was only after it came up in the course of the conversation after oral argument on the motion for a new trial of williams and the judge said a light bulb just went on and i related to you and she said yes yes you are so she didn't disclose that but she knew the entire time in counsel knew two days prior i'm just there are many documents in the file but there have been no reason protect lunch review any of those documents he was not the original judge on the case just leave us with the regional jets on the case so many of the documents that were in there that possessed her name of williams i don't think that most judges are going to go through the entire file and examine any of the signatures in the normal course of their of their proceedings so i would i would argue that that that that argument just just is insufficient again i'm going to readdress the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence i believe