supreme court in the city and the whole case in which they sought to protect against here we have a case plaintiff a service claims for breach of contract and wage planes and a defamation claim brutal rows between mr stein and his former employer mr kristoff and the circus last offer mr stein worked there for a number of years and when he left in late two thousand and one mr stein claimed he was owed money for vacation pay offer he became a new gauge of the same area practice of law which was in consumer fraud class action type work in the dispute between the parties then began to escalate in june of two thousand  morning he sent that letter and that letter accused mr stein of making misrepresentations in papers of submitted by mr stein in this risk i'm seeking to be appointed class representative in the trial for the class representative in of this case on two six one five two six one nine including the arguments as to whether there was an absolute privilege either as an attorney in litigation or for a duty under law to which is the entire focus of all of these motions was not protected under the stanch and that the lower court made it very clear in saying to them multiple times that it granted the motion because the plaintiffs unlike any other type of two six one one motion and again contrary to what the supreme court says in the sample because it was for example the judge said in looking at the contract in stage wage claims he said that they that's isn't that the problem that there's no the amount of time or as a citizen till the proximity in time between the protected activity and the falling of the determine whether the retaliatory and whether in fact they are meritless so you can take the defamation claim some of the balls on that do that dual task and then look at the breach of contract since they want claims on their basis and i think  were clearly in its mind retaliate tory but that in the motion a motion to dismiss would not be appropriate because there was no evidence whatsoever of a lack of merit now  a citizen has a right to communicate relevant information to a court without fear of civil liability as this court is well aware the court can affirm the trial court's dismissal of the thirty minute complaint on any basis present in  the court to report it to the air to see and not to the judge that was involved in case the the basis for that argument is the skolnick decision the school only decision says that they report to an illinois court this is not just charter duty under rule eight point three because under the rules of professional conduct you have to go to a tribe you know that's authorized to act or investigate misconduct here there was another tribunals that was authorized to investigate and act on this and that's the eastern district of pennsylvania the reason that the eastern district pennsylvania had that authority is because the federal courts have an entirely different disciplinary regime that's in place the federal courts certainly if it found that mr stein had made misrepresentations could the federal district court judges were absolute privilege under two for two reasons first they were absolutely privileged as ace report of relevant information to a judicial body and second they were absolutely privileged as we just addressed as a statement made under a duty never challenge the dismissal of those claims in the trial court and therefore has a way to appeal rights as to those quite a few factual points that may provide some further context of to what really occurred here yes it is true that mr he was not searching to try and find a reason to say bad things about mr stein what happened was that mr kristol up was in fact emitted to practice for the assistant eastern district of pennsylvania and had a case pending he was going on the electronic eastern district of pennsylvania searching for the case that he had pending and because he had multiple cases that would come up under his name he chose to search under the name of one of his lawyers who was also working on the case that's mr car handwritten signature in addition to his typewritten and that letter can be found at page five twenty seven twenty eight of the record the court like to firm up mr stein after receiving the letter of statements which they eventually declined ultimately this kind of case was dismissed for reasons totally unrelated to mr chris love letter it was dismissed on the merits and shortly thereafter as we all know mr stein a citizen could be sued for side for writing a letter to a judge in charge of criminal sentencing in a criminal case a citizen could be sued for telling a trial court judge that a part of the case had offered him a bribe to testify falsely  the fact is that our system of justice demands that we not discourage these types of relevant reports to the finish our system of justice is one that's open to the public in our system we must protect terminating whether the pay should be dismissed out of service citizen participation it does not change the result in this case the initial question under the same decision is whether the suit was both based soley on a protected petition and when you see it receive mr chris love letter and that until he received that letter his attitude was that time heals all wounds as soon as it goes to the wage in other words he wasn't going to even pursue those wage claims lightly because they were meant less until he case in which neither the original statement was privileged and neither was the republic statement here we have in the originally absolutely privileged statement by mr kristol of to the court and the court certainly had an absolute privilege to provide that information to opposing counsel and the case so the republic ation issue is a nonstarter because you have paul and originally privileged communication and a second privilege pre publication neither of which can form the basis for a valid in addition there is nothing in the in the third amended complaint that alleges that that republic patient was a defendant tory act so there is nothing in the thirty minute complaint that alleges a claim for defamation specifically based on that republic it's getting back to the issue of retaliation in addition there's the further evidence of retaliation here is the request for you to damages the effort by mr epstein during the course of discovery to under the circumstances of this case where the same home decision came down and changed the world after everything will be done in the lower cork this court is certainly capable of looking at the stand home decision to make sure that the lower court applies the law just procedural to all pending cases including this case in this court so for example one of the spin home decision came down between the oral argument and the court's all the determination this court would entire case should not be dismissed and they included the wage coins he said that the conduct was not an argument but it was not protected under the c p a and therefore get more should to reconsider should be denied that apply to the entirety of the case under those circumstances i don't believe that waiver is grounds in song what we have here is a situation where it is clear how off an attorney knows number one and ex parte letter and communication with the court is an inappropriate communication you can't hear and isn't a lawyer an expert in communication with court and he knew that secondly if mr chris law except it wasn't a party or right he wasn't a party girl we were involved in the case and when you look at the federal which they cite in their brief rogers you'll note there is no obligation in that for anyone to report and the absolute privilege that applies the absolute privilege supplies is only when there is a absolute duty and obligation imposed a lot about his argument then there is also no prohibition again someone reporting that's one thing you know to have an affirmative duty but where does it say anywhere in the law that an individual is prohibited from communicating with records while they are but  agent they are d c and this with exactly why you're saying if an illinois attorney knew of wrongdoing anywhere else in the united states or in paris or england or anywhere ability but they do so without the protection of an absolute privilege for home they are making false and defamatory statements there's nothing wrong if you have true information that an