the attorneys are going to make a presentation today please approach the podium and state your name in the party that you represent but we don't really get to that issue until we get to the primary issues which is that in this particular case the defendant raised the defense the affirmative defense of the tort of immunity letter for offense they did it not through the pleading only kind of see if i can attack each of them as i see them to be important for purposes of this court charter schools is mentioned nowhere in the tort immunity act in the definitions of what constitutes a local public entity that's important because this is the statute the legislature decided to to put together and they could include anybody that they wanted to they could have mended any time to include those definitions of a charter school the way that the defendant tries to bootstrap itself into affording legislature put that in there well terms and so that's that's an interesting point because that seems to be one of things that the fourth district was struggling with and in fact when they wrote their decision as they indicate in my reply they put  brackets that those portions of the tournament act that they believe are apple which in this case would be related to the court back to the idea that toward a very active like to the charter schools that it may be immunity court puts those brackets to to put its understanding of what worsens authority there are applicable to to get and that is the one series and that would be i put it on page three of my brief that s so what i understand the northern cane decision relates to is it's suggesting that the heightened pleading with the heightened proving it has to be thing a claim like this is what's required as opposed to negligence but i'm not sure how it is that they got to that there there is the suggestion that council act on itself doesn't make clear that charter schools are covered by that and then the charter school act doesn't make clear whether or not all of the whether or not if the charter school act doesn't talk about that it believes that the charter school is a local public entity and just by being in charge of school whether it be a local public entity then we need to look to other decision the o'toole decision earth the wild side those supreme court cases talking about what when when a entity that is for instance of a private school a private academy charged with for instance wants to assert itself that it falls within the umbrella of the local public act in the toward immunity act that there are certain things that have to be  correct that that that's what the fourth district of decision appears to be say well that that was sort of the practice of the right that that wasn't heard to the they were talking that was but when they when they decided to look at what what portions of the touring it act would apply they chose to include in their decision by the press and there isn't anything in any other district other than that fourth district case that talks about in relation they were purporting to define something that was not at all central to the holy in that case i think we can't get behind why they chose to do that but in the absence of well how about this then why if the general apply except that at the same time there were there was no decision made by the legislature to amend the local public entity section so as to include church schools that would have been just as easy to make it clear so that we wouldn't have to be before this body by clued in that specifically as a local public entity because of the control aspect of it those cases a burger or carol and tool are important because in order for an entity to be under the it to be under him to benefit from all the invaders and fences afforded i go local public entity there has to be controlled by the government there there isn't anything applies secondarily we don't believe that to the extent that the charter school act refers to or includes the toward in the act that it is clear what particular aspects of that control and network getting to the the system the second issue essentially which is whether or not the allegations that we have pl thing about that that could ever be subject to a discretionary decision maker about policy but again based on the record now before the court i just don't i don't see that finally that the the suggestion that the plaintiff hasn't played a robust complaint so is to demonstrate allegations of reckless conduct willful one conduct and i think that based on the allegations that have been pled public entity in illinois would be a subject to the freedom of information act and every subject to the open meetings and and then when they came along to the charter school law you can see right out of the box they made the charter schools in illinois subject to the freedom of information act and the open meetings act that was paramount of paramount importance and if you go back to with the illness reports said decades earlier those are the things that define a public body in this state if you're willing to be subject to the freedom of information and you have been meeting zach you're a public body and so when they drafted the charter school act they put that right up front and center and they said charter schools are going to be subject to these two scratching my head over that but i would say this that earlier the decision and it's it's it's it's important for today's discussion they've used the toward immediately ak repeatedly throughout that decision as an illustration and they sat when they were when they were pointing out how these other laws apply but i could read it for the court i pointed to but you have in front of me say the tort immunity act a pox and the huge support immunity act as an that case but he said it was very clear that even a private entity that owns a charter school is considered a governmental body for purposes  of being a state actor and i think that's very important for our discussion today because in that case they cannot defend this motion to dismiss that they were not a state actor so i think you know under the charter school  took the good with back you're going to be a public entity for purposes of having tort immunity act applied to you but you also think the fact that even as a private entity you can then be sued as a state actor under plaintiff which i don't think is appropriate i think if it's in violation of supreme court rule three forty one there's also a case russell cited in the reply brief for the first time it should have been argued earlier that was not held in the russell case by judge dol acts over the norther district that case merely stands for the proposition that the litigants in that case stipulated to the fact that there's a true your statute of limitations for personal upon by the trial court in granting the motion to dismiss i would have to stand on my brief concerning the other arguments that were not relied upon trial court but before sit down and i'm happy to accept any questions again as they did in their response we've talked about how the northern king case talks about how subsection she is so clear but if it's so clear and it was so clear to the fourth district there would have been absolutely no reason for it to append its understanding of the apple portions of the target here that were covered and so i think it's it's a mischaracterization of the fourth district's belief that that that particular statute was so clear and true it is our position that given given the the language of the statutes and interplay between them that it is not clear that noble network has a charter school entitled to all of the interviews and defenses that the local public interest or over to the extent that council had just talked about whether or not o'toole or whether i drew her these off off from carol it's the same logic behind it so it's not a new argument it's not