substantial experience as trial and his trial judges if we were called upon issue an injunction circumstances such as this we would have to be persuaded that you showed a likelihood of success on the merits everything doesn't the feedback there's a fair question it's fair restroom well when for about a fair question i'm not sure what you mean don't you have to demonstrate trial courts satisfaction that you're defenses stop and waiver on a standard of free from doubt you're clearly ascertainable like free from doubt i understand why he might have said oh well there's i can't say it's free for out because what's free for that anyway  morning honest my name is chris ellison attorney here on behalf of st mary's hospital i'm as often happens my outline now been thrown out the window after hearing question from the court i think that the the statement made earlier that when you i believe the last peaceable actual time to preserve the status quo was prior to the time the contract rights because what happened with it i don't understand what you just said with when this agreement was signed what happened at that point is that there was a practice operation where the specific employees began working for the hospital and one fact paid by the hospital as part of this operation so at prior to the time you're ducking the argument the employers i believe the argument that the employees make is that the last peaceful time was after the contractor side when they were working for state marriage and for state and whether i'm adopting that i can carefully say such things i would only go that route for them to ask for a period of time when these employees were not employed there is no such period that testimony in the record was that the transition from the hospital to competes that might be of interest to the hospital but the employees knew because they signed it so why does the you know when you talk about jade it wasn't disclosed how does that make matters far as the employees are terminate them somewhere they stop the employees walk away from those jobs you would be here i think it would be a better argument but i think the court still would have found have it failed after two days of it so basically that the hospital is not a party to the their incorrect standard why should we senator or not i believe that is an option that you can do but again i believe that the case officer cited in our grief counselors that again even if a court does apply wrong reasoning which i'm not stating here the preliminary injunction and that's that the basis for that is in the record it's not an illogical conclusion that this court made a firm on that basis so the question of mandatory injunction first preliminary injunction i acknowledge my life would be easier today had the language been different but i think when you look at what the plaintiffs were asking the court knew it was asking st mary's a nonparty to a contract to terminate employees who was working for them based on interference claim when there were a number of defenses at st mary's have asserted to those claims including waiver in the stop or whether the contract themselves had been assigned to the hospital so hearing all this together the trial court found it suggested to the parties and counsel that he viewed this as a mandatory injunction one where the status quo ante cannot be returned one point possibly be fests a force no longer has a place of business and make in town and country longer work and making there is no place for these employees to return to the plaintiff wants to make them go work in champaign illinois and make them drive that distance so there is no status point because there is no physical location where they were or where they can go back to work let's just one reason it's not  their competitor i during this transition period and so there was a period of time as i contested it was actual that they were working for both entities with the cooperation and the permission of the players and during that place working for safe works are now being told to go work for st mary's and to build trust her relations enhanced the business and things like that so that fact it cannot be overlooked this case and i think that was something that we certainly apply i would agree with that ok so my problem is i understand how we can affirm the trial court based show by the record but when the court is essentially doing all the kind of a commute that most people chicago would laugh at that's not exactly the dan ryan expressway so what's the big deal well that was something that judge later had the benefit of hearing eleanor for examples canadian since she was working part time indicator i was runner standing when she was she moved over champagne she working even last when she had to go to ship you know on occasion she would be given miles checks things like that because it wasn't so now she's working last getting paid the same amount and having to pay to drive fifty miles one way every or one way every single morning her husband lives in st louis and the only times they would see each other was on the weekends and so it really was a crippling think the notion that you have to go through that those are the sort of things that we're talking about and the other s repertoire eleanor's replace a day or two after she was after she resigned or or let's say forced by more qualified candidate so these were not the high level employees that you know would conceivably pick up and leave their homes to him and told him there were not hearings that she presented a document to the hospital where she simply said that there were no non computer agreements so he was misled by her good coming business fairly recently so he testified he was misled by her she lied to him about the existence of if i'm thinking in terms of you made reference to confidential information and there were business practices perhaps you need to see with me of getting dates in doing that new customers and extend their arrangement by virtue of some of the software that savers had developed over the years paid for and was doing all this behind the back of overarching pleasure and their pleasure and he was during that during the six week period right she was never i think by the one standards and then to ask this court essentially to scour the record it may take factual findings to know as to why this injunction nevertheless should have been denied because this court in all due respect wouldn't have the benefit of