govern state university who was discharged from her position for reporting another faculty member in her department for working three jobs outside her fulltime duties as a professor in violation of section four of the collective bargaining agreement between governors state university and in violation of the university of professor's research and consulting which is a state is to apply for permission to work outside by filing the form one hundred in advance signed by the dean the department head and the the president or his designee and also signed by the family in all this is right in the collective bargaining agreement which is much more space civic than the statute itself but it also it also states in the collective bargaining agreement eat because the collective bargaining agreement is significantly more specific than the states that which is the general prescription so the contention here is that the only reasonably believes in here there's no evidence that she did not that she did not recently believe that what she was reporting the concept of reasonable belief that a law was being violated is explained very the plank of does not have to give the exact statutory citation of what she's complaining about which is what the trial court and the defendant would have liked in this case and also there's another case michael versus persistent alliance holding th critical is a critical point to consider when these cases and side now in this case governor state university about a year earlier was found guilty by the illinois misapprehended that the plaintiffs group three complains about her coworker working three hundred side jobs she was running a daycare center in chicago she had a consulting business to slow learners and she also had a part time teaching job at another institution three jobs she had normal authorization to work for those outside jobs the planted is a ph d a very experienced early childhood education teacher who no d something was wrong the hollow co faculty member that she complained about was not showing up for school she was in there during the day when she was there she was on her cell phone she was on the on the computer distracted totally from what she was no one not showing up for class when she didn't show up she was unprepared she was reading from the textbook is that a teaching there's a lot of other issues that she has represented her credentials but we can't even consider that working three outside jobs in friday elation of the collective bargaining agreement was simultaneously also in violation of the state law the university faculty research and consulting such as to protect or under statute makes it very clear that they are one in the same thing except the union agreement is much more specific prescription to not working outside jobs is to avoid conflicts of interest and distraction from full time duties which is precisely what the point of complaining that secondly the union agreement define dollars that is a document that supposed to be submitted twice a year and it's signed by the professor asking to work outside jobs it's signed by the dean is signed by the chair head and it's also signed by the president of the provost or his or her designee during this governing govern the state university or the complained of the professor could not produce one single form one hundred to show that she had authorizations work those outside jobs so there was certainly a very high motivation to discharge the pointless and to sign itself during the depositions the dean the president and the department chair were all very question affect the question of fact in this case is was the point is fired for protected activity in other words complained about and had more violations or was she fired because and governor concept very very well actually one of them is from this district parliament here persons international harvester which is probably the paradigm retaliatory discharge case in the state i think  not knowing the precise statutory citation in her disclosure to govern a state university administration that there were ethics violations and by the way every single employee is required to take  report suspicious the purpose of the act is not to punish the employee well to reward the employer who discharges the point of unjustly the ethics act also requires only a reasonable as i stated the statute is a general prescription while the union contract is much more specific regarding the same identical topic the trial court made it clearly erroneous erroneous finding that what the point the complained of did not there were two threshold requirements for an exact violation that was the plate just burton to show and there was no evidence in the record that would support the conclusion that either of those had been met and  record she gets inferences but they have to be reasonable and they have to be supported by evidence in the record so that this was what's missing here we look at this actual record what is it disclosing what she reasonably believed to be a violation of the law rule or regulation and that's where we have this dispute coming in where she says well she's characterizing the complaint as complaining of violation of the consulting and by her own account what she says is she was asked you know what laws rules or regulations that she think that this professor childhood violated and she answers that she was concerned only that the st it was violating the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the university because in her view the professor seemed to be working more hours than would be allowed by the union contract and to the dutch she meant of her university employment and council theory is well that's a complaint about this consultant statute that she wasn't playing with the consulting act but if we look at those her internal complaint which is really one remark that she made and then the later inspector general complaints she's not complaining she's not simply not complaining about any violations of this consulting at statute certainly there's no mention of that statute anywhere but it goes beyond that she says if you look at her complaint she's not complaining about the subject matter of that statute that's the actually doesn't place any limits on the amount of outside work that  team member can undertake it provides for certain procedures for the faculty member and this is only for research and consulting work to get this pre approval and then they also have to later fill out a different form about how much they did work and she's not complaining that the proper paperwork wasn't filled out there wasn't pre pubertal her complaint was i think my colleague is doing too much outside work and it's interfering with her job  of consulting work and counseled also said that there was to read jobs i believe is referring to she had an ownership interest in a child care center but that doesn't have anything to do with her working in that capacity or spending any time on that and play just complaints was really about the i was talking about two jobs that i was teaching and the developmental theory their work which pertain to the business that she actually pertains to pre approval process she wasn't complaining here that the professor didn't go through the pre approval she was staying i think my colleague is working too many hours beyond what's allowed by the collective bargaining agreement her complaints had nothing to do with the state law they don't refer to the state law there's no evidence that she was considering state law that she really believed to be in violation of state law she was focused on more hours being worked too many hours in violation to collectively the nothing to do with the pre approval process that and the record keeping paperwork requirements of the state str or regulation and what she points to just say i stand by that is she says well i was complaining about the violation of state law this consulting act and submit or receive prior approval for outside consulting work so that statute is geared towards the receiving of the approval and not doesn't have  reviewing what the actual complaints were her internal remar in the you know why she complaints and whether it back can be reasonably construed as alleging a violation of the state law and i would say that when you go look at what they say that my colleague is working more hours she's doing too much work and that's not permitted by the collective bargaining agreement so her complaint went to the outside of hours just working too many outside hours it didn't have anything to do with they weren't approved she was just saying she worked too much but there are two factors here there are two elements here the distil factor that has to be shown you that if these complaints constitute a protected activity she also has to show that she was improperly retaliated against her discharge  contributing factor in her discharge was her protected activity and there is no evidence in the record that can support that and i am one out of time here but it's set forth in great detail in the brief why that is so was a contributing factor in her discharge and that is what is missing completely from the record and she's all of the evidence shows that the discharge was about her unprofessional conduct that came to a head w about that but there are other problems which is that there's no evidence that her supervisors even knew about this on finding that certainly true for the division chair or the team you can't there be no reason why they would know that the president perhaps you impute that but it's still there's nothing of the record that they would have any idea of the audit finding and then for the division chair in the dean there's no evidence that they had anything to do with the decision to suspend or discharge her and then beyond that there's no evidence that the audit could resume provide any retell to remotivate had to be tied to the record there had to be something that would show that they were concerned about the audit finding or you know they were concerned some future potential deviation something that ties it up but there's nothing there there was some speculation maybe this could get someone in trouble or maybe this could a loss of funds but it had to be tied to something in the record that there would be some concern about this and that's what's completely missing and to for those reasons for there's a more detailed discussion agreement does provide some approval procedures as well but it's not implementing the state statutes not implementing the consulting act and i think the consulting act  doesn't have anything to do with teaching its research or consulting the collective bargaining agreement has its own procedures and also some limits on how many hours  dollars an ounce i didn't come from the state of illinois as the sole proprietor in the two businesses she ran the daycare center she had a consulting business a slow learners and she had a part time job teaching a core is not going to even acknowledge his require us to not then i really couldn't ever formally say i'm not going to allow them to represent yourself he just kept making the request and the court never knowledge and never gave him from the record where mr brown comes into the public defender and have a discussion with the court that he and mr lobel had sat down with mr morris and went over them didn't believe that this was a defense t please right i agree that's the factual scenario but again you have a defendant over the course of over two months has made repeated requests orally and in writing that he wants represent himself and the court it clear on equivocal on the loose for a while and then there's discussion between chords or or maybe even the court gives the person a chance to think about it and they come back and they say ok well i i want to go for the   or continue to be represented by my counsel who's not going to raises the fines and wants his right to represent himself was taken away from he can't raise the france because now he's got a council the saying i'm not going to raise right he waived the right for the state prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt cross examine the witnesses against him at the trial in this error occurred but i think the time frame matters i'm asking what the trial right don't think so he yes he does not make any requests after the july st but i don't think that not making a request after that after such job you can't get anybody to think about the job it's like i don't think it would be something new for this this court because i think the rule is already established clear interesting at the end of counsel's argument was thinking about the answer your question about the fact of well it's not so much the just because of the fact that the defen found out that it was the intervening causation offense based on medical i believe he also found out that from what the defendant had articulated was the fact that his whole intervening causation offense was based the fact that milk records to do the intervening causation defense what's he going to do ok he's going to take a question of things here look this is what you wanted this is what we're trying to give you give your lawyer a chance to do th colloquy speaking it's not so much that the trial judge is basically saying hey i think it's a bad idea my idea is better than yours isn't doing that he's just simply trying to make sure to accommodate the condors defense and give the defendant the opportunity to present a potential offense if it was possible and so in this case the trial judge i think acted properly the defendant clearly acquiesced in every one of the hearings acquiesce to what was going on and i don't think the trial judge committed any error in doing what he did play explaining and talking to the founder so on the substance of well we don't believe that there was any error here at all there was little denial there was no requirement for the forewarning now having said i would say that that would be what i see within the course of question to take a look at i think it would i think that it bolsters because what you're trying what you're trying to do at this point is you trying to decide whether or not the defendant has made ever again that's what point is the law and the rule if i have to make a record and i think you're getting the facts of this is that the the court just really not represented by counsel or what if a person wants to testify because it's the only way they're going to get their defense on in the court denies their right to testify again which we hope to ever see that not all but it a clear constitutional error in the person's want to sal that that pickup truck to the front door literally to the very front door of that residence and then drag mr ford's body into the residence and leave him on the floor and no point in time did he call  and the defendant have plenty of opportunity to investigate they're not prejudiced in any way plymouth area matter before i get into the substance of the the arguments in the case law i need to address i'm pullin every issue i have to make some corrections as to some misunderstandings or misstatements of that is not reflected at the record where it comes from the pinpoint site is a form of a fortunately there wasn't a lip sees or comma put in there but what the salute the former saloon bartender was saying after telling the story the nd or rd time a deposition that the there was an argument caused by an unrelated patron towards the driver because four the common or record he makes it clear that the driver's seat was on a bar stool why this is the other individual was in the bathroom or elsewhere all the other living people that were involved in witnessed this occurrence have also made statements  depositions that are in the record and they all tell the story of it was on the barstool they never mention it was in the space he wasn't even in the seat also when you combine that logically if your feet are on a barstool how are you putting in somebody's face so the record just does not bear out that any feet were placed in anybody's face in fact the record disputes it and strangely the st time this argued was ever brought up was a poll about the feet  then went around again all the discussion in the record it's very clear by multiple people in the record that this other patron got upset about feet on a barstool they thought was his barstool while he was in the bathroom or the jukebox he wound was caused by this unrelated patron over somebody's comma during his barstool choice while he was in the restroom another fundamental issue is the repeated use that in this of all police record for a couple pages for judge mccuskey was that was and it's more lies in how defense attorneys try to have alternative arguments if you don't bite on issues maybe you'll bite on math trying to get a judge to bite on something he hi is no evidence whatsoever in the record that any and visible opinions or issues of intoxication just not in fact it's to the contrary which is that the last  up the the black going to will of illinois is that because drinking affects every individual so differently drinking enough is not alone let alone the miscible on its own you can't in any kind of trial dram shop or otherwise you can't introduce hang their hat on unusual behaviors or not we have allegedly unusual behaviors here well he said he said that there are certain cases that they let they've laid out in their briefing how there was this is enough to get you over that hurdle he says those three facts are enough and respectfully that's just not true i set this up my own briefing a detailed discussion of each case and here's the big peeves of these cases are because i only have so much time to be happy after any individual case but there's three big categories of cases between all the briefing in this case three big categories when it comes to intoxication or unusual behavior getting over the her st there's a series of cases there's cases and this is the appellate side that some of these that we just we further distinction are free there's another category of cases about car accidents where there isn't enough to say there's intoxication but there is much more to these cases about that for example no one case was somebody not only was there drinking somebody missed this took a driveway for a turn that they've been taken all the lot he also didn't use did do this they did do that there were several indicators that things that they didn't do in their entire life that they didn't have the comprehension to be able to do right before that accident had been drinking entered smelled alcohol therefore they were able to put all that together say that you know that is an issue of fact if you're intoxicated because it was so they were able to was a higher level of not comprehending what was going on the other so the current cases where they found intoxication there was a much more involved than just the fact that a wreck appen you needed driving and driving too fast fact is senseless physical beatings and assault that come out of nowhere between are between the briefing involved parties in this case some of those are set those involved scenarios where there is no another example of senseless beating where you can for intoxication is a man ask for some napkins and all the sudden a guy that was slurring his speech pushed the man in the face and get out of here and then then proceed to beat beat him over and over again for asking for a man's there it was a sense was beating in slurred speech so doesn't have any and this is a case where he is trying to assert is that certain things rise to the level of unusual circumstances in the trial court said null that under the case law does not because of  ship the record shows that he that he did not initiate the verbals all it was the other patron who was mad it was barstool the other peter and initiate everything why cover up and also there was multiple people involved because of so we say all these people were intoxicated and that's why the cover up the cover up itself doesn't show intoxication my time is short so all move on to believe the men it's a two part argu after the initial finally going to hear of him over a year and a half after the statue of limitations right there was no looks explanation why the these people weren't added before was no explanation why they could argue law society for why they waited so long why they never tried to a jurisdiction issue and down that that statute of limitation could stop them from doing that in a motor vehicle franchise act then they went on to win that then and now the stock or make an analysis of whether that statue imitation part of the elements of their cause of action and they found that that statute limitation was an ordinary statue of limitation that could be told for example the suit no question to get out parties or not really do believe that and i think here it's clear to me and really all the case law including the service for peace and sentence that is followed that that we certainly are  so i my name is laurel spawn and i am an attorney with the legal advocacy service is a division of the illinois guardianship and advocacy commission it is a state agency c was appointed as counsel on appeal for respondent a pilot t m may please the court t m was faced with two independent involuntary commitment proceedings exactly one week apart and this was in january of twenty eight m's motion for directed finding in the st proceeding because the state failed to prove the prerequisite for involuntary commitment that t m had a mental illness one week later although t carry the same diagnosis from the previous week this time the trial court found out to have a mental illness and  was the week before and that it would take t and being sober from drugs for two months to know whether he had a mental illness or whether he was experiencing drug induced effects this is a case about rest judicata and it's an issue that this particular district has not dealt with in a mental health appeal before and it was st and last addressed in an involuntary commitment appeal in an illinois matter how case twenty five years ago that was in the congress case from the th district but in the conners case from one thousand nine hundred and ninety four there was no dispute that the respondent met the prerequisite of having a mental illness and that's not the case here and that's what makes this case unique and worth this court's attention here there is no dispute that he am have been using a synthetic cannabinoid drug called key to you for at least four months leading up to the trial court proceedings but the mental health codes definition for mental illness excludes substance abuse disorders and there's another statutory mechanism for drug treatment and that the substance use disorder act and that was formerly known as the alcoholism and other drugs is it possible that this is just my reading of the materials records that the testimony was that they felt that the case you had we have that separate statutory mechanism i think that would be the better place to treat it because it's excluded under the because substance use is hearing this one week apart i'm january rd the court says well i'm hearing a diagnosis of unspecified psychosis and we effects and the trial judge said motion for directed finding grant there is an essentially that was like a prerequisite proving here petitioner we have t m as they responded the directive finding granted in the st t m case was a final judgment on the merits and this is according to this court's our k k case and also we know that a losing party after a directed finding has the right to appeal that decision so that there's a final judgment on the merits and there is identity of cause of action between the st and nd case as in resulted in a different you just finding one week later whatever had actions that happened in that week's home did not change the diagnosis and the doctor in the nd case specifically said on peach twenty three of the transcript from the nd hearing yes the diagnosis is the same it's the same diagnosis that t m had last week the trial court should have granted teams motion for directed finding when the state's expert on that nd week in the on january th had to admit that it would take two more months to be sure whether he had a mental illness and importantly as take appropriate medications were also requested here and i want to point out that the national institute on drug abuse that their k two article that cited in the opponents brief provides specifically that behavioral therapies and medications have not specifically been tested for treatment of addiction to synthetic cannabinoids so i would stand on my grief for the other issues in this case they're they're pretty straightforward unless the court has any questions but r and none of the exceptions to misapply in this case responded argued that all three of these exceptions applied but speaking st on the repetition exception there's no likelihood that t m is going to face the same action the facts are different is why it's not the same in the women seek case it talks about just being it being subjected to an additional hearing is not sufficient the facts is that there's he had a similar diagnosis but i would argue  in the context of residual caudal sort of like two parties are in a contract for example and one party breaches the contract because they don't provide a service that's required and they litigate that issue and it's resolved but the parties remain in the contract while now we go a month down the road and the party reaches for a totally different service or doesn't provide a good that they were supposed to provide we still have the same parties we still have the same contracts we have different underlying facts just like in this case we have different underlying facts as the st hearing went the response was granted his motion directed findings so there was a final judgment we don't just view that there was a final judgment on the merits it was different merits after he was released he immediately started exhibiting dangerous behavior he went to his mother's friend's house he was trying to obtain a firearm he was trying to rob a bank and go to the court house because he had these delusions involving the f b i and all some of these things it sort of come up in different contexts previously this these were new facts it occurred and it was because of these new facts that is mother called the the authorities and said you need to check on him and then they admitted him and then once he was admitted initially he threatened to a nurse he groped a nurse he had continued delusions regarding shadow people in the mental health facility that he was in there were a number of different facts that had to be litigated in this year and that were not present at the st hearing and so that's why this wasn't judicata and that's why they're repetition things exception is not is not a case here because these were different facts so it wasn't the same thing repeated over again even though k two was was in the background of this case but this i was going to address and i think you make an excellent point because when we're talking about substance abuse disorders a lot of the case was discussing cocaine and alcohol abuse and things like that as new synthetic drugs are being created in the black market and other things we're seeing new problems you specifically causes a host of psychological problems that individuals are are suffering from the website they counsel referred to talks about the psychosis to conform from using this drug i think methamphetamine also involves psychosis the issue here with the mental hope code is that it is a better place for these types of issues to occur because it's not simply treating substance abuse it's treating psychological effects of substance abuse simple substance abuse treatment is not designed or were geared towards treating these types of mental health issues that are deal they're dealing with addiction and how to break the addiction this isn't an addiction issue this person is a danger to himself and others as exemplified by his behavior and by his threats so that properly brings this within the mental health code even though it's sort of a different twist on you know the question of whether or not this is a mental illness st of all we think there is a mental illness because the doctor testified to the psychosis  schizophrenia it's just where does the where does respond to fall on the spectrum and so it's a matter of degree not a matter of does he or does he not have this problem in the doctor testified we need more time to treat him properly but i think  court properly found was clearly an underlying mental illness but what for sure is that mental illness and how do we go about treating it and i think that's the appropriate consideration here when we look at the parents patriotic approach to dealing with these mental health issues for the state has an interest in protecting this person and protecting others from this person's behavior and look at what happened after the st hearing immediately he starts going out and acting erratically again and became a danger if not  guidance as far as the court's decision that may affect the move this determination although we still believe you can set that aside you don't even have to reach the merits on that issue if you finally already had an underlying mental illness and that would be what we would advocate for approach making sure that we're taking care of this individual and giving him the services that he needs with regard to some of the other issues we talked about in the briefs the written information requirement here counselor i think i think we've both made a mistake with well the information for those drugs was provided the idea is just a different form of how that drug is administered it's in from muscular as opposed to through an oral pill it's through a syringe and if you look into the record in this approximately seventy page packet of written information explaining the benefits and the risks both of those are in there and so i think there's really no distinction he made between how the drug is going to be administered because i don't believe it changes any of the side effects from that drug lack of quality of the previously written predisposition report the report does contain information of a regarding the preliminary treatment plan but it doesn't talk about responding social history and it didn't talk  about the appropriateness and the availability of alternative care but this court previously held in conny g that as long as the record shows that that information was testified to there's no harm and the record shows throughout th dr landsea testified to the benefits and risks the fact that alternative treatment was not proper response mother testified extensively about his social history going back to his youth and dr lancy also testified regarding  respondents history going back to his youth reviewing the reports of dr pinto which i would also know did also diagnose respondent with a mental illness that with bipolar does whether in addition to the h d that was discussed and the other disability that respondent had and then finally i do want to touch on the plane air element here responded correctly points out in their reply brief it with regard to forfeiture in mental health cases it's covered by the civil code and the civil code does not require a post trial motion to preserve an issue but in looking at some of the case law i think it's interesting to note that this may be a civil issue but there are liberty interests at stake and we're always dealing with in these cases or issues of move we're a year and a half later respond i can't get any immediate relief and they end up in these ninety day commitments in the appellate courts can never keep up with when these issues happen and so i think it might be interesting to least consider the policy behind a motion to reconsider in the context of these and requiring them because that would offer a respondent relief within thirty days if they were to file a motion reconsider instead of having to eventually service ninety day time and so i recognize it's not required but really it may be beneficial for both parties because we're going to see the areas that are properly preserved respondents are also going to be required to get a chance a nd go essentially and petition the court say hey you made this error let's review this again and it actually kind of is a beneficial concept for both parties and i think it's sort of logical when you consider you know in the criminal context of the choir these motions to reconsider because of the liberty interest and things like that that are at stake and so i think you know while response makes that point it isn't required maybe it's something that the court might take a look at because i don't see a downside in my eyes usman and if there are no further questions ask the court to just be aware that the doctor on january th did not testify that we need more time to treat him properly but he testified that we need two months of t m being sober from hate to to determine whether he has a mental illness or whether he is experiencing  lot of hearsay that came out in that nd trial what opposing counsel talked about was that t m was allegedly trying to obtain firearms and that there was a threat to assault a nurse just about everything that was testified to that was occurrence information and that that nd proceeding on january was you know he had some difficulty from the time he was about six and so he was fifteen he used alcohol he got into trouble we know that he spent time in jail and the mother said that time that he was in jail he was never in a mental health segment of the jail so i guess a young child with a d h d he had parents who were separated he went back and forth between his mother and his his father things were difficult the mother was trying to get some help for her son he was discharged from hospital he went to his mother's friend's house and the mother's friend was reportedly driving him to the salvation army where there is a shelter we know from the transcript that the mother was reportedly talking with her friend the state's attorney categorizes that in her grief has the mother overheard a conversation that's not anywhere in the testimony at best perhaps or what we know from the cross examination was clarified on cross examination in the the transcript is that the mother never had any direct communication with her son after he was discharged that st time but she learned everything from a friend so that's all that's all hearsay a friend told the mother the mother then testified to the court own so whatever was said is second rd hand information we don't know but we have the doctor testifying that he read in the notes or he heard from staff so we have a whole lot of hearsay information and i would just remind this court that we have cases differently because we have allowed them to be treated that way but we need to treat mental health cases the same as any other legal case and we can't rely on hearsay and we can't turn hearsay and  facts and we need to look at rescue to comment just like we would in any other civil case there's a purpose for that we have a judge finding one week that unspecified psychosis in this under these circumstances is not a mental illness because the there's uncertainty and we have the the dynamic and case that says if we don't have that degree of certainty if there's hesitancy about whether a person truly has a mental illness we don't have clear convincing evidence so the judge said on january rd we don't have a mental illness yes we don't have the prerequisite i'm granting the motion for directed finding and that's in the light most favorable to the other side a week later now this person has just been discharged has just been discharged from the hospital after the hearing the person has done nothing except going to the mother's friend's house or a friend of the family  emergency response services saying hey i want you to go evaluate my son and possibly bring him back to the hospital and that's exactly what happened and then the mother comes to court and testifies to hearsay about what allegedly happened we also have in the background in the transcript t m saying well that's not what i said t m didn't have to testify in his own behalf and he did not he has a right to remain silent the state has to prove the case by clear convincing evidence but what we have here is a judge  are saying psychosis unspecified under these circumstances we don't know with any certainty that it's a mental illness doesn't meet the prerequisite but then the next we saying well ok now it does that doesn't add up and under arrest to the cottage principles this court should reverse that word this court also has the opportunity