cases and i'd like to just go briefly through the through how the act works because it's very important to understand that the act is it does not create an administrative procedure that the court is familiar with from other agencies where there is a final administrative adjudicative decision here it finds facts and it makes determinations of liability that are done reviewed under the ministry of review law this isn't an agency like that the general assembly  authorized the department to act only in an investigatory capacity so what it does is it receives a complaint towards its hears that it should investigate circumstances that lead it to believe that a contractor is is classifying what are really employees people that they control and under those other you know category criteria that the act has and that they are and if they're misclassifying them as contractors independent individuals who are not who are really employees who who the employer is controlling more you know it is satisfying to the other criteria and it wants more information so it invites the contractor to give more information and the contractor major this or may not as the plaintiffs declined to give any more information so step that's step one and then step two what happens also is that there can be a conference where you as there is an exchange of information and so on about whether or not these employees these these individuals are employees or in fact independent contractors and then if the department finds after after further investigation it sends another notice an it's going to take any action and so so then so this is the second step so first there's the investigative investigation and the preliminary investigation findings then there can be a conference and so on and then if the department finds at that point then it issues another notice and it's you know it asks and it says you know there can be a private civil action you should be aware of this and so what it does is then look the party can ask i require us to submit more get more information and again the plaintiff didn't you know compliance and this is again under you know to forty point one fifty in the administrative code if there isn't voluntary compliance with any of the departments orders then and only then does it refer an action to three no no i mean it's not a so they and this is what happens and rocky remember that what happened there is they the plaintiffs if it was a private plaintiffs said roughly departments made this investigative findings i've satisfied my burden of proof and this court said no you didn't you have a burden of proof these are not precludes at best a liability so what happens is that you know there has to be a presentation of evidence admissible evidence you know for a court to determine whether there can be voluntary compliance and only if there is no voluntary compliance is there referral for enforcement of what the department has what it is seeking in terms you're the serious news including you know the this but in fact you know as as you know the illinois supreme court has said when you get a notice of an investigative finding like this what you can national marine what you do in this you can ignore it and that's you know and that's what construction of the act and yet the bar for court did not you know chose to ignore you know to reject that reasonable constitutional construction and come up with what we believe is an unreasonable and definitely unconstitutional construction of the so you know when you can choose between two reasonable plausible constitute constructions of a statute a court is obliged to choose the constitutional law and now now there's no legal effect to the department's investigation happens and that's why again for their it's that's why there are two consequences that one is because there's no legal effect there's no deprivation so there can be no due process claim and the second thing is because there's no it's premature so your position is the question of what process is due given that this is just the ghost story situation there's nothing there's no process right because process remember process is required for and a warning judgment to the department and what the st louis stands for the composition it stands for is that the department and you know if the because the the act doesn't prohibit the depart agency of law principles because generally speaking agencies only have the powers that there have been so to say that you have the power unless it's prohibitive ceilings every tribe or your question back at how the act plus its regulations work you see if there's sort of an increasing levels of investigation and then finally you get the department you know assessing fines and so on but only and then there has to be voluntary compliance you know the rules say that some five ten to forty five times and so if there is voluntary compliance you know there's some sort of settlements that everybody you know goes away happy if there's not that's when you get to the id you can take judy to face and then the attorney general's office does or does not have you know go forward with and action in which the department's investigative finding blow applicable need to follow it we don't know that's true so that means the point i'm making is i'm not sure the trial court felt that it would be exercise for any discretion to exercise its own that leaves me in my a comparison i came up with what about  it just doesn't say much she says well you know this is a strange that situation what is that you know and they should be given some deference of the example during the statute of how they want to interpret it why should we accept their interpretation that says this is just an investigation that doesn't matter  and i read that case and i think trust me i've looked very hard to try to find a way around that but i think the trout works right i think the statute the way it's written doesn't provide due process but there's nothing think the supreme court's going to go on if there were it's up to the purpose representations i don't think so but i could be wrong but the point is that i think you should try to get it right and make sure that we don't end up with these frankly i think just two points with regard to the separation of powers argument that the statutory scheme and money and maintenance well first this is that the apple is for us the first time this argument came up in this the court considered to millennium maintenance you know such choice came was quite different there was there was a difference between legislative backed an executive backed the legislative act of approving a variance and a permit and andy and  this foreign force majeure and and it will be highly unusual if the department could go into the circuit court as the plaintiff and not have the burden of proof and again i  that you have a right to free act and this i don't know i mean the statute doesn't speak to that i happen to investigate it i would just i'm normal you don't have don't respond you can sit continue until you wait for their trial two years later to say that there's a penalty increase from daily basis so they're subject to maybe double appear to be employees under the criteria there are four or six guys six days this is that you could be assassins this maximum penalty and so what happens during the investigation because investigatory face is that they say amen let's talk maybe you had no idea maybe they were lying to you maybe just maybe got that saddle this is the maximum penalty that you could be assessed and usually if it's for a project