the that gave rise to the underlying op expenditure an absence of anything that might be called evidence and in this court is faced with what a mess to a question of first impression regarding burden of proof under section two of the illinois version of the uniform arbitration act which is exactly the same as a pretty else's version of the informal refresh and that question is whether there is at least some evidence required way said lisa at least in terms of well preserved they presumably at least your are that the evidence would be the equivalent of presenting an affirmative defense on there are six nineteen a be presented by the application as a pleading and would for a resolution require either a six fifteen motion or a summ question again if i  the uniform arbitration which is is there a burden of proof if the answer is yes the follow up question is does that burden of proof require something more than the bare allegations of a pleading yes the which is seems although not verified that he received some sort of carlyle's there is absolutely no evidence that he received any distinct and incremental compensation amount by virtue  speaking your are there could be a situation shown by some heads that employer says to employees you're about to embark on a chapter in your appointed relationship with us and we go or going to proof is aware of the conditional nature of the extension of benefits and that's really the key to awareness and that's actually mutual on a contingent nature of the benefits  client to principal ship those benefits were not forthcoming wants the contract was proposed the benefits were forthcoming and those benefits match the benefits created under the contract even though they may in march park all slow half alternative and the court knew of all the financial benefits through the k one including the car lines ah frankly i think that all the court orders from looking at a k one is that he receives some income and he received it it was that the court should be looking at general staff friends they say that when the court decides whether or not parties agreed arbitrary the courts generally just apply state law principles that govern the formation actions you don't cite a single case says contract whether something falls within the scope of the agreement but the initial b terminations as to whether there really is an agreement is still made by the court well the scope thing is actually  don't think that's absolute pressure or what it is that we are i don't i don't think that section two is much different than the other day when it comes to the proceedings to compel arbitration or here which is what well i think pretty much covered under water as i said as i just to summarize briefly this case is primarily about is there a burden of proof and what is that for under section two  application first of all for the k one specifically this judge we we submitted them and said these are the they want and this is what they want to show this judge going to the transcript any argument that just took place you asked mr stover's counsel you end this argument you just took place you said are you contesting their use of your pleading i know now i asked the question whether budweiser in that case you know is distinguished from what we have here there was a statement given to the employees that continued employment a continued acceptance of employment means you assent to the terms of this book is there anything in the record which show that there was such a condition presented to stover in this case in write anything in writing anything in the record shows that he was given that the trial court relied upon in announcing his rule in the corner so no it was the admission in in her in missouri that he is a principal and if he's a principal and promoted the principal there is are potentially two things that issue first of all the key judicial missions here and there are several of them that the court points out his family and our judicial admission ok he doesn't just say in this pleading that i was promoted to principal in two thousand he goes further and here's what he also says in paragraph six of the petition he makes an indemnity request and before that before that or he goes through and then lays out that the corresponding is both the promise and the misery of titian as well three that i just cited to you judicial missions in this pleading in missouri where he sued grant for claiming on three different occasions in three different paragraphs that he in fact w one we gave the court and indicated this is what was given he's not saying no that's wrong he doesn't even say that to that he doesn't admit that it's right one but he doesn't say no it's not the right one you know was secondary saying look you're a partner you're a principal how since you're a principal i want you to sign the agreement but that the appointment to partnership preceded the signing of the agreement so that wasn't the device by which the elevation partnership or principal should occur i don't agree that those notions the missouri played it shows that mr stover self doesn't believe the missouri pleading shows that mr stover himself knew and believed that he was in fact a it's wrong what you really are what and also suggest to me that i mean obviously to me if if if they really think there's evidence that that would persuade court to go the other way you know what we should be talking about here is a hearing where they come and present that it's interesting to me they don't seem to be asking for that and again i believe  there was something he had to say that could really change this analysis something that he could bring to the proper or i think you'd be asking for a change in what he's asking to do is to be relieved of the admissions that he made there the principals agreeing well the problem of course is twofold there was absolutely no evidence that this particular document was he did it the principles agreement that was you know the fact that there were no time much less  face of ob court's assertion was odd with respect to various items of evidence of the court says you know this is the agreement it actually is fish see the evidence strictly speaking devolves on the question of whether the trial court had any evidence from which to draw any inferences whatsoever and you said you have to dismiss this under six one by that said that the you know the motion to dismiss the based on the the original motion to compel there was enough there to get pas where not to europe and they certainly it's pleadings motions and they certainly plenty enough to stay in the case the president is whether they prove t procedures to follow them describing an application and some sort of opposition to that page and then a separate determination which is not say taking as true taking as prov