with the lawyers who are going to we're seeking to participate please step up and identify yourselves for the record for skakel lincoln and behalf of mr cushing is a supervised administrator of the but he did it under the authority you will but in both instances you thank you purport to be representing the interests of the guardian and special administrator of the mi no one would be the miner the other would be terminations about how much the miner receives as the beneficiary of the estate specifically ninety five percent versus klein five percent  remove the suggestion that there was a counter loss there were counter claims of the court did not allow for you go into the details of this i guess the simple question is was there a sanction for ten mr going to before we go any further and i think the first and most important issue for us to decide this point or hear remarks on this point is the jurisdiction of this court would you address yourself to that please i would be delighted to i know that the better issue has been raised but i don't think fact removed from that position as a pilot and there are cases that might shed some light on whether or not mr pushing was removed so if that's all you're going to say that's fine but the rule says that a judgment or order entered in the administration up in the state guardianship or similar proceeding perhaps you can stretch that and say that you know an order entered in the other division had some sort of hearing on the state and and that's fine but there's more to the rule which finally determines the right or status part so division and the response to that then i think of the correct response i respectfully submit as they are i think you have to look at the substance of what occurred t bad it was very clear that the trial court was not paying attention to her particular recommendations or to her speech yesterday having any standing in the law division court the other problem they have is that is that i think the special investigator can there's certainly into the wrongful death ecu can have several special administrators the court one has excused from doing all those things if there's somebody else doing it but if there's nobody else doing it the core special role in the opposition this fact doesn't affect the rights hours and authority and duty of cushing in his probate appointment then there is you agree no jurisdiction here so also involved in this issue as we discussed whether there is fear or stiction is so what he is given the opportunity to weigh in on the propriety of the settlement and raise any objections he's invited to participate with comments and for whatever reason or combination of reasons declines to do so and if it is if the issue really is whether he was prevented from doing his job in protecting the interests of a stake of the deceased why does he not take the opportunity to raise objections raise questions do anything other than stand basically mute when inviting specifically by law the vision judge to comment on the contemplated disposition obvious state cause of action against the defendants i think the answer to that just as have seen is that there is a huge difference between commenting and participating as a party and commentator as a bystander and that was his role at that point that's why this need even say i am i would love to participate and raise questions but frankly i've been shut out of things and so i can't even formulate the you roland he said that he was going to remove the lawyers and he did remove lawyers he appointed attorney gubbins to represent the minor he was appointed the person in real pain to represent his state or i'm not sure i understand how mr pushing is impacted by what's going on in the special administrator because that was the point when there was an entity appointed by the judge to take care of or represent the state of the litigation so i'm looking at this request for relief in your reply brief and we have basically spent a little over two million dollars going to the five percent to be a state of the minor twenty five percent according to the order goes to the lawyers another twenty eight percent i think goes for costs and expenses twenty two percent tw so you're talking basically like fifty three percent at this point and god knows what with the sixty four motions that have been filed in these matters in this court and that's the exact number as  a day unless somebody has found something in the last twenty minutes which is distinctly possible already basically half the money according to the lower court's orders not going to the ask questions about stimulants and i'm just thinking about even if your theory is right as to the effect of removal and your jurisdiction how this possibly benefit the interests of the beneficiary or the estate of i think there are a couple of answers to that at least somewhat interesting the first one is that the argument seems to be in essence the ends justify the means he's why we think the question is why are we shows us that mr pushing was affecting the rest of the special administrator did it was worth a try for it ok you suggested the order this way and it's one of the reasons why you say that it's i are subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the to the states that we're dealing with the state of the deceased and his state of mind the answer to that i think is yes that would order versus avoid order the result ought to be the same otherwise we can simply have the courts and guardians ignore the statute fire people well putting people up well without any of the showing required to do what was taking away from the you know the work of the probate stake as much it was being devoted to representing the interests of the minors the true but the problem with that as i see it how did that come about cushing's ability to participate is think it's a very different situation to say that we did hear you but you don't mean anything to us so we're just going to entertain well you didn't say you didn't mean anything to us in fact  the comments that have been quoted several times in the briefs were were really anything but dismissive now you may believe that they were disingenuous but they were they were inviting and not dismissive and there was there was no statement made in and i can hold the quote if you want but i'm sure you've read it a number of times it was inviting responses and saying i'm interested in what everybody has to say about this that's right i  don't disagree with that but again i think there's a difference between saying i'm happy to hear what people have to say and somebody having the right as a party to stand in front of the court and say something that gets back to what i i said i asked about earlier which  raise an objection you know you can save your honor i appreciate the chance to respond but by your previous orders i've been denied access to the information that would make my response  meaningful or informed and there was no such statement that i've seen that with the statement i believe or the closest statement that i can recall was when i advised the court and the court admitted already of question was affected by the appointment of m b financial the answer to that question i think is death to come back to mr cushing's role it extension of the authority of the g a o under those circumstances but let's assume at least as to the minors interest that's covered who is left to represent the interests of the surviving spouse in the estate in the wrongful death action very arguments at the time he was asked to comment on the propriety of the saddle there was actually already presented here on appeal of a half point so i hope it was you know should be done i think that constitutes waiver is what i would say well let me let me just ask another ansley question before we move on i'm assuming without deciding that mr he argues in that motion that with mr cushing's consent cases were you case was resurrected in colorado which is a whole other can of worms on the federal court would collateral we are any further proceedings in illinois should you get the relief that you were seeking here that would undo the settlement that has already been agree understand it and i don't know enough about it because i only know what we've been given which is scattered stuff it was there was dismissed because the case was just was dismissed here with the settlement so i don't think clear her interests were not represented there if she was not part of the proceeding i don't want to get into it this this point the whole issue of how there could be two wrongful death actions one here and want to colorado or  to meet all the orders that were initially entered you're not really testing that related to the discharge of the attorneys you know when special it's been a stranger here who may or could or has been a huge job and i have nothing to go on one where the other of having a conflict the idea here is  state the best chance an opportunity to give advance prosecution of the case so at the time that these initial orders were else the interests of the mine prior statements and the general notion that the interests of the minor have to be protected i don't think there can be any question about that i would submit that it doesn't mean that that every other procedure and every other rule of law has strong just to reach that purpose especially especially when as in this case there was no evidence and there was no indication and no finding a willing that mr cushing had not adequately done his job well presenting the state regardless p s special minister mr cushing but mr question without he was done he had no right to say anything at that point with or told him i don't think you have standing your well is when you get back to probate that's where you get to kick in again so there was nobody looking couldn't find the f they never said he was conflicted there was never any finding he had no chance or opportunity to say wait a minute i want a hearing if somebody says i'm being conflicted out here there is a removal statute yes there happening in connection with the administration state this is the prosecution of a wrongful death action john cushing except for a couple brief days when judge of callan made a mistake and he recognized that nick corrected it was was never not sure i agree with you mr cushing yeah the attorneys there was a guardian ad litem representing a minor and those representatives were all present in a lot of issues when everything began were they not router bushing was not allowed after the first lawyers were destroyed in his representative yes when he was prosecuting the action on behalf of the state of deceased and when he was in this goes back a ways when when judge the kelo got involved in this case and you realize that there were conflicts i mean if you're if you recall jobs judge swi individual with the exclusive thirty to proceed on behalf of the minor in the pending bra suit and that bridge to delegate and relieve any other persons thirty to do so so what was happening here is the p headed recognize eventually the money was supposed to go back or at least pushing the money was supposed to go back for poor baiting and that's where mr cushing was was the  authority to appoint a special administrator was about appointing a guard even fly them to be in place of a father to decide whether the settlement was in the best interest of the mine i mean i i know you keep arguing but i'm trying to figure out why that applies here but i think that i think i have a place here in connection recognition was cited to the probate yet but also citing to the courts powers in dealing with the best interests of a minor the court recognize it could not loud this case said it's going to be distractions all the way if we are fighting it whether during during the pretrial period of the trial about conflicts and about who represents who and when the first questions  orders was just a slap a different label on another person saw the death isn't that what it's about it's always happened well but the point is whether slapping that label m b financial affectively did or did not take away the authority and is justice mcbride was suggesting her question it's all hindsight so i'm not sure how awful it is for us to consider this but had this been referred back to the probate the vision and saying these are the problems that we see with the current occupant and i guessed from what mr cohen can said that happened at some point we think this should be a different special administrator then you'd have somebody that would assuming it was he was removed would satisfied with never concerns a lot of vision bad about the propriety of the current occupant of that office but the question is whether the procedure done followed here really took all of the power and authority and duty of mr cushing placed it with someone  will take the matter under advisement issue a decision in due course i would like to say for the benefit of everybody who is here involved in this case the motion practice are sensual in the minds of the lawyers to the prosecution of this appeal there have been many that failed under the broadest possible interpretation of that standard and i would caution the parties before you will fix your names to any other motions to seriously look at the parameters of appropriate advocacy because if this continues we may be called upon to make decisions that as justices we are not anxious to do