is that the county's terminations oh mrs marteen is maintenance payments was not a knowing violation of the illinois income withholding first or act and therefore the county should not be subject penalty under the illinois withholding for support act otherwise known as the holding or the second argument raised by the defendants is that the illinois tort immunity act defeats plaintiff read the withholding order and instead cited to rely on i believe it was a handwritten letter from their own employer as well as a letter from his attorney in order to terminate all support payable matter cannot be simply in the geisha one of the essential elements of plaintiff's claim and must be something that actually defeats the claim out outright a good example violation of the withholding act because it was done in six separate occasions exceeding v the presumption that arises after only two in response the county  that the defendants in that case could not use an assertion of an annoying violation as an an assertion within the purview of two six nineteen percent of the ruling involved in the fund its motion to dismiss should have been denied race alleging it was an affirmative matter is that the tort immunity act should apply and should be far as murkiness claim however in order to determine if the protect taxpayers from issues and matters arising from the operation of government in a situation such as this in which cook county was not acting as a governmental body but was acting as the  the situation which should cause the tort immunity act to be applied or triggered the task itself of implementing this order in the payroll department at the county was a was a task that has to be completed by nature were simply ministerial and even clerical if you will or for the terms of the tartan unit action not applied to her actions to shield the county from from the penalty that case is from two thousand and fourteen and the court in that case ruled in a in a case of first impression in the state that the target in the act in fact did prohibit the withholding at kind of tease because of the on they did not agree with either the application of the term unity acts to the facts of the case or did not agree with the fact that the hundred dollars a penalty was punitive in nature in fact examining that the penalty itself  hundred dollars a pound z is a pretty good pre determined amount it's not inherently uncertain or unpredictable as are punitive damages in fact the penalty is more in the nature of a liquidated damage fact that the language in the reasoning and the theory behind it are very persuasive in this matter and this is an extremely important issue and i think the fact that they took the time to mention you have basically segregated all those people families spouses spouses children of employees and probably entities and saying that they cannot have the same protections under the withholding that that the families of private employees g in this case the county that it was basically leaving behind a whole bunch of other documents in fact it was after a specific request to specific requests to terminate all support to try to be all withholding the two six maintained was properly granted because there was really no no reason to have a trial there was no evidence that was contradictory fact then the standard or review changes it's hard to tell as we all know from looking at the circuit court's order whether the circuit court made any findings of fact i think be the default in this case may be that there wasn't there were no findings of fact because the circuit court this language was i doubt the rationale the reasons and the arguments of the of the county he didn't mention the facts i don't think it was necessary to mention the facts in that ruling as brief as it was because none no facts as i mentioned were contradicted or in dispute so this day i would i would answer your question to say it guess you could say that there is some difference in the fact that these than the supporter of the uniform supporter was transmitted to the county and the county provided the   adds weight to the sworn testimony of the wage garnishment or that she simply made a mistake that she unintentionally and honestly made a mistake in stopping a i understand that there are hundreds of thousands of families in illinois that work for the government and nobody would want to see those families left without a tool to ensure their children and spouses get support section thirty five still requires the government to turn over to withhold and turn over the money that i'm not nobody is saying section thirty five doesn't require the government to perform that what we're saying is that the tort immunity act was a common law act but was was put into words to protect the taxpayers money from being diverted from its original intent and the t made what i'd like to point out actually is that there are other ways to force the government to do something and you can file a mandamus act then you can file a contempt motion a motion to compel which was done in this case both of those actions include damaging damages in a way that the court has the power of contempt to issue fines to compel action and it is that that  and the second aspect of that for the government is that the government doesn't have anything to gain and to withhold the pains section thirty five defeated and i worked in child support i can tell you that and the government has nothing to gain by by keeping the money for themselves without the somebodies paycheck and in the case of a business is using it to invest in in their business obviously the government doesn't have a twenty thousand employees checks that's all they do all day long they get withholding orders from every corner of the county and and outside of the county in this case and they withhold money so it's not make the case where there's a enough of those cases use that language in this case it's just a simple mistake it's a unfortunately state there were several payments that were missed but it's clear from the actions of or mary that that meant she got that i mean it was within a couple