any gambling device now i don't think there can be any dispute that this is a contract for gambling because it obviously needs definition of a gambling device gambling in illinois is illegal therefore any legal in illinois to contract for gambling is if only statutes pacifically authorizes such gambling here the only act that possibly authorizes the lease of a video gam has argued that the acts that the only video being an act and it's supporting regulations don't apply to this contract if that's the case then there's nothing that pulls this contract out of the realm of a contract for gambling that is a legal under the only criminal code and as i stated before the times mentioned a stance the proposition that a contract for gambling is void evident issue therefore this contract issue in this case this case because if the court recalls the triple seven decision by and the circuit court was actually a decision based on rightness the court has said that triple seven did not have the ability to bring there was a number of other reasons why it would have potentially determine that that the contract was valid in forcible the metra placement agreement which is at issue here however the reason that that court dismissed the complaint was because the matter wasn't right that's an issue of subject matter jurisdiction in the contract for gambling it is the same contractor now arguing allows them to force lease to put their name terminals in their steps and it clearly at the time it was a contract again we no license entities therefore there's no  terminal an unlicensed term or operator best sought licensure but its application for licensure was denied by the only gaming board in june of two thousand and twelve shortly thereafter on july sixteenth two thousand and twelve that's then sign this contract to the defendant jim who was at that time a licensed terminal operator prior to the lease seeking situation where we have a contract the defendant says is not under the purview of the only video gaming act and it's not subject to his regulations or the act and they're trying to enforce it they're trying to enforce  then with regard to your statement about that you make a statement in your brief that judge lane and determination in the other case was clearly picked up the other determination question and it's a it's one actually triple seven addresses the decision addresses which is at the time at its formation and at the time of the various assignments from metro to vast and from bass to jack it is not use agreement because defeat the whole purpose of the act absolutely not let me tell you why so the only gaming more hundred percent of the video gaming act is authorized and it's not a broad authorization its authority is to regulate video gaming licensing applications they're asking for prospective ahc raiders and licensees to submit their contracts as part of the application process prior to their relationship so they know that this is occurring they're encouraging it to occur because it's part of this process because you alternately want to encourage the efficient and effective implementation of the gaming you want to do that not only for the industry but really i think what their primary concern is is that look this is that this is a revenue generating device for the state they get metro made it before it applied for an application best did as its application remain pending and from the illinois gaming board it was then assigned to gaming and entertainment management before its  denial of its request and i'll say the council misstates the record they said that in june of two thousand and twelve illinois gaming board denied the request it's not actually a true state of facts it's not true up with creation of of of the rules and regulations what the rules and regulations really provide is that an applicant remains an applicant even after they receive an initial notice of denial so long as they make a request for a hearing which in this case is exactly what that  licensed entities pursuant to a use agreement it does not in any way limit or in this exactly which will seven holes it does not in any way limit or prohibit parties from entering into these contract before they are license now what it does prohibit is the installation operation of those new gaming turmel's until folks are licensed and all the sudden you're going to really be into a restriction or limitation into the apple doesn't exist that's beyond this this is the statutory powers or the or the  authority that this or house because you're reading in a limitation that just wasn't there and not only is it not there it's it would be it would upset a practice of the only gaming board that has existed since two thousand and nine i mean remember the deal with giving orders accepting these applications with these pre life insured remits as part of its regular practice and to change the rules for years after the fact would dramatically impact what is going on in the industry there are literally thousands of contracts that that triple seven entered into a contract with police at the time the contract was entered into triple seven was licensed to leeds was not triple seven it is now operating video gaming terminals pursuant to that contract so if you're going to all of a sudden interpret our contract as not being valid uniquely have to make that same analysis with respect to the triple seven in the lease contract but we would argue that you can't and you shouldn't do that because you're not upset when the illinois gaming morton is looked at this way that the industry has practiced in this way and you put at risk thousands of contracts that have been entered into print licensure and assigned by various parties and so what was a bit of that so what so you're practically speaking with just that on the street how this will affect if all of a sudden you upset these preelection share agreements there are thousands of locations which are already operating pursuant to what was originally a pretty licensure remit but then after the became licensed and became a use you then putting at risk the operations of those various actions because what you're saying is is that that underlying contract never existed and you can do that without without creating seismic problems within this places you know i have yes i think i have a general sense of what that is but that's not part of the record it's you know there are literally hundreds of those if not thousands of those and many of which are in operation today i mean certainly you know again not in the wouldn't take it a step further which is that it sort of administrative house year is a reflection of really the only game board practice policy and for this court to do and substitute its judgment for that practice and certainly the way this industry has been ok you know we don't need no i wouldn't say that judge what i would say is that the only gaming board which is charged with regulating this industry in charge of licensing the various entities within this industry you know certainly have policies and practices that this court should should respect and give deference to does that mean that those things certainly trump you know other considerations i don't believe that that's true and i don't want to overstate my argument but what i can say is  later well sure so let's i mean let's think about it from let's think about it really from from the perspective of you know applicants perspective which is the applicant comes into the market you know the only gaming mortice encouraging them to sign up these pre election shirt agreements they do so illinois gaming world and i think what they are but what they will likely do in the on the gaming board certainly anticipated that people would make applications in that those applications would be denied and i don't i think it would be i think it would be inconsistent to say that the only game in order not allow these folks to then perspective operator who goes out and wants to you know incentivize different locations by paying them money or giving them t v s or giving them something in exchange for signing music or signing a a pre we can do that right i mean there is a rule and it's rule three twenty which says that you know there can be absolutely no inducements with respect to the to the contract that that you can't give anything in exchange for an establishment she will enter into that contract with you and it has to be not only in the contract it has to be true as a matter further i would like to address you know triple seven really does answer all of our questions and raises all the all of the issues that this court is presented with the only argument responsive to triple seven or any pending litigation and therefore you can't make the stretch that equipped that the illinois gaming board was somehow changing its rules and policies by making these changes in fact they don't support what the lees w them out work and interestingly the one argument that these offers today is its primary lead argument is that this con this underlying contract is not a legal contract for gaming it's it that issue was raised in triple seven for the very first time but it was raised in the reply brief of triple seven it was not raised in this court at all in this case at all it was not part of the complaint is not part of the trial record it's not an issue that is first be it's here it is clearly been waive it would be precisely in order with the act that it the it's a place an agreement says specifically that contract you know in the parties will comply with the video gaming laws the video gaming act video gaming rules and regulations they will obtain their licenses  us question at all it's a reflection that these agreements before they become use agreements and use agreements have to have two license party on either side of the fact that those rules and regulations that apply to use in units only apply using units and you the contract really but these contracts specifically predicate gaming on obtaining your licenses from the video gaming from the only gaming board and specifically said that you have to have those licenses or you can conduct any of human activity that's precisely in line with the video gaming act it requires less insured on either side it says that you can't engage in any of that activity into everyone's license and that's specifically what is contemplated by the video gam have gambling the contractor gambling it is void of an issue because it's illegal i would like to go back to what the criminal code says it says gambling is when a person bargains for the sale  issue is a bargain for the least of if you get a video gaming terminal for placement at some point in time into an establishment the criminal code is not simple the bargain is what is considered to be the gambling when there are the same time saying it the only video game act does not apply at all neither does it regulations it's not within the purview of the i g b to even make this decision whether the speaker's agreement is valid or not the only thing that makes it invalid and would have an issue is the