represent the appellate the deborah dimaggio thank you both of you will be allowed a total of fifteen minutes each so of pallant reserve from their fifteen minutes home for much time you'd like to use for  into my office crying in indicating that she was a free to go to court thinking that she was going to be jailed and i learned that this was regarding the attorney's fees and sounds of court i knew that there was something wrong here so when i reviewed the case i found that this wasn't simply an isolated incident of some error or abuse of discretion rather what i saw was a pattern of conduct  that indicated there were gross deviations from established law and practices quite frankly that i had not seen all along when this is right to the attention of the court what was done to donna was described as a bleeding now how someone who is in our system of justice and go through something that's described as a bleeding judge entering a judgment on the matter we felt that that was not sufficient and that what the procedures that had occurred need to be reversed and addressed because the judge had still ordered that the attorneys fees agreement to pay and i'm going out of its own to declare bankruptcy over twenty five thousand dollars that they don't want them and why should we say that's ok white white why should we disagree with the idea of this not being indicate that these statutes are primarily to enforce parental responsibilities and that parental financing parental responsibility should not be something that is this chargeable however the reading of those statutes indicate that th testing the procedures here as either void or voidable for several reasons i have understand that with the one nine hundred seventy constitution we have changed our perspective as to how we analyze these cases i understand that the jurisdiction is granted by the constitution and recently would the cases that have been dealing with these cases seems to be a lot of attention paid to where we have to have a balancing act where which you do to one side of the equation you have to do to the other so on one side we dealing with jurisdiction and then on the other side we're dealing with a just disappear matter it's now time for us to start focusing a little bit more  nveloping what is the concept of a just discipline matter and right now the language of just discipline matters may be new in illinois the concept of the disability has been around in the federal courts for some times and in order to perfect justice ability it does not concern just the subject matter i've seen in the you know particularly with cases involving administrative review  or administrative agencies we see that other doctrines are involved including the doctrine of primary jurisdiction spending whether near is a case is right and statute had been made then that would be on the person who didn't appear however in this case what we had was a client who initially responding to the attorney's petition not enough arbitration itself and in this case counsel the initial claim by the attorney was worth twenty forty seven thousand dollars for over forty thousand dollars correct and then the judge was set down in know she did so how would mediation have helped how is offensive she didn't go to a program that would order any money but she doesn't hear how would she have been well it's not necessarily that that would have helped her as far as her ability to pay was she would still ahead of right to have that hearing even though she would pay anything no matter what the result was well even if she even if she couldn't pay anything yes money she could pay there are several times when judgments are earnest and people just don't have the money all the time actually constantly every day yes so but i think in this particular chase this is phrased as an agreement of the parties and it's not  it doesn't there's the evidence in the case that this is more of what the lower court was what it there was a hearing did the work order made a finding there was a hearing in the lower court made  finding of what it found to be reasonable fees work and recommended that the parties could not settle this matter it wasn't like they'd met and decided it would be five thousand dollars was what they agreed upon this was not their agreement this came from the court this is what the court recommended so let's see if this is we're in form it looks like an agreed order this is really just what the judge wanted at this time this was no agreement from my client she signed off on the judge combined with threats that if you don't take this you're going to be consequences quite frankly fee she felt like she had to do this and there was no what the choice for her to do list so these circumstances are n circumstances under which we can say this was a willful and voluntary agreement here so we're at an outpour you to look at the substance of the circumstances surrounding  not just the labeling of this as an agreement all right because i don't think that's what it is and there's no the the record is contrary to that to that and it supports the fact that this was a result force court now reports to create court will decide whether or not she really is poverty stricken and if the court finds after hearing she's not obvious for it and the judge will in turn order she's the p x number of dollars including whatever new fees have been applied but we don't think that over result or something should be held up valid for to a failure to comply with the law this is a poisonous tree that everything has been  matter and that is afforded her under the statutes understanding but her intention or her and she is an absolute inability to plan and so why would we are we required to perform a useless sack and start over again it's not a useless act requiring her to have all of the benefits of the law it is what that support is for even though she'll never pay a dime of it it would not be a start even if she wouldn't pay a dime she still has an opportunity to be heard in a litigator the matters being forced into this position but because she was being denied the opportunities that she should have had under the law period that's all she wanted was for the law to be complied with the law is clear the letter which is his right there is plain all i just want to point out that in our argument we didn't after reading councils we recognize  the change in a perspective of how we analyze these cases with regard to the stick no we're not claiming that the court did not have jurisdiction but that the exercise of it was beyond what was authorized and it was for that reason that it was void or  i just wanted to touch on one issue that wasn't talked about and wasn't dealt with in the reply brief and that addresses the jurisdiction of this court now i've learned enough after thirty two years of doing this that orders should have been appealed within thirty days thereof and with therefore divest the court of jurisdiction and i have no answer to it frankly the more i do of this the less i understand about a i believe we're just doing our part to bring it before you and let you determine that and it's it's brief so that's that with respect to counsel and again i did have some difficulty between the briefs and the arguments responding to some of this but it essentially boils down to two things number one were these orders void and then number two if they were not void  and again it concerns me that council didn't raise they it didn't really deal with it in the reply brief or anywhere else and i've cited this theory panel's decision in the johnson vs ingles hospital case just a couple years ago that really laid out the rules on jurisdiction this is clearly just the civil matter section five a way that petitions were filed the court had jurisdiction even if any aspect of the statute was violated that doesn't void any order and i also cites the bay area case which happened to be my case of a couple years ago where i was also a five a wait c issue and my client was to do serious failed in two respects to comply with viable way number one and would seem to be fairly important he didn't file it at a timely basis within the thirty days and he also hadn't withdrawn petition which is also required one of the issues in that case was whether the statutory noncompliance avoided or made voidable the orders and fifth division said that did not citing amongst other cases a bellville order which i'm now being told is not an agreed order but i guess that gets down to the abuse of discretion issue and again part of the problem that i have in this court may have been dealing with that is the fact that other than the produce cash and that has to be done that's great frankly to do the same thing though to people who have failed to be an attorney's smacks of debtors prison to me what kind of hearing was held when the trial court set a cash bond on the writ of attachment the body attachment for miss weaver that she should go to jail for failure to come up with twenty five thousand hours care whatever in city here to show that she had twenty five thousand dollars squint it was she judge mathis ossetia i'm told i'm told there was a hearing again i'm a little bit limited as is the court because no reports of proceeding were frighted and just so you know i did not represent mr and i going to trial court so what was in what was nat presented i cannot really tell the court what i can tell the court is that the issue first of all that the contempt issue itself or the jailing or whatever to me that's five miles behind us the issue now are the orders to pay and whether or not those should be upheld and again regardless of somebody is going to complain about what was happening happened in the trial court to get here to get your attention and to get a reversal they have to support their argument adequately and that would include the reports of proceeding or a bystander's transcript or an agreed statement of facts all kinds of ways to do it and she had apparently she had lawyers didn't do that so now we're at the point of these orders starting with the ones she agreed to and then the subsequent ones that were caused by again by her noncompliance should they stand would you know these tensions didn't go that far right was not the court's all motion i believe they withdrew then and the judgment was exactly right that's so that's where we are now regardless of how we got there and i don't believe there's anything in the record that supports that she was threatened with jail for failure to pay a judgment certainly not nor any other threats the council seems to talk about when he's talking about now that it wasn't for agreement that there was some sort of li center dealing with whether or not you should agree and i think that ties into justice quince questions about well she wouldn't wasn't going to pay twenty five thousand she wanted to file bankruptcy she wouldn't pay ten she wouldn't pay five she got advice from her lawyer which she herself put in the record say hey this is a pretty good deal you know she's asking for forty eight thousand you could lose so we're given you with the opportunity to get rid of it by twenty five thousand and she took it but she didn't comply with any of the procedures and now she's complaining she's saying everybody else didn't comply with the law didn't comply with procedures when she's the one who didn't comply with any of the procedures and is not complied with a lot in bringing this before you but with respect to the arbitration issue mediation as the justices have indicated exactly what i don't know what she's asking for she wants to go back and mediated and get lesser or possibly more against her and then not pay but the point of it in the legal point that i tried to mine out of this is this is this is something that's label and to be again it was and i looked at the beni educates against the same thing they said well these are requirements but requirements that are naturist fictional can be waived you have to look at the context of the parties and that's what happened here it wasn't your fee petition must be filed after you have withdrawn it which was also not complied with but again the issue was simply does they had void out anything that happens work can these things be away and they also say that the lindsay robinson case  which i think is another judge methane's cases that was a frome were again it was a timeliness issue they didn't file their petition in time the court said again it's wave of will it wasn't addressed it wasn't objected to  leave it to the same order denying motion to reconsider b i'm sorry but i do have them all here just look at the before i got up here you're just having trouble dealing with this particular appeal we know accord and satisfaction is an affirmative defense as to the raised adequate pleading in the trial court none of that was done wasn't raised in the appellate brief now we cite some cases  reply brief in all say besides the fact that it was waived below when it was waived here is that it wouldn't apply anyway because according satisfaction requires the satisfaction is complying with the agreement which she didn't do so again why that's raised here i don't know there was a complaint about the court's recommendation of twenty five thousand and some inference that that caused again any sort of coercion we do this every day we have pretrial we have recommendations that's what happened they preach write it in whoever came up with the twenty five thousand that's alternately what was suggested to the lady to do she had a lawyer to very good lawyers it's just an issue of is it an abuse of discretion and there's been no showing whatsoever that there's enough there's discretion otherwise stand on my brief unless the court has any additional questions and i will look for issues of just disability and in that case it did not involve the courts duties to comply with the statutes where in this case it does so as distinguishable there as far as transcripts i tried to get every piece of transcript i confide in as it turned out from the court reporter's office oftentimes there was no stenographer there and they simply did not have them the record i believe was sufficient to refer to the occurrences not necessarily with regard to this accord satisfaction the court treats this so called agreed order which is something we've never i've never seen on one hand as an agreed order  will they should be if she was if deborah received twenty five thousand dollars which my client did post she was actually arrested and she had to pay twenty five thousand dollars to purchase the contempt and that money was forwarded to deborah dimaggio the terms of the purported agreed order we're satisfied at this point the claim is exhausted it's been resolved it should be no jurisdiction to go any further  additional attorneys fees in the second petition it is labeled a final petition which presumably is not what the legislature intended to create one final petition after another in the first one student words of all the claims done they withdrew at the time and this stuff is going on she had no lawyer well what lawyer did wind up getting involved for the most part each lawyer withdrew she was essentially without representation on her own in pretty much a shark infested waters why the court if this had a court of arbitration as an any other chase where there was an arbitration award and for the most part the court was simply acting in a way acting as arbitrator and out what the courts should have done is simply reduced bed finding to a judgment entering judgment on it in fact the court did eventually do that but it was only after i actually mean there is sit and told the court what's going on here all these violations of procedure if you did this in this and the court itself said there will be endless petitions this morning potentially never stop that was never judge did not understand the law and whatever and it is just a bleeding whatever should be done against this woman was done every deviation from