mr bishop you may proceed thank you justice we're here this morning to determine whether or not the trial court erred in this missing plane of complaint when if the complaint filed by the plaintiffs demanded trial by jury is a part of the court record likewise there can be no doubt that the defendant's motion to dismiss was filed  overrule plaintiff bradman's objections to the twenty requests to admit that a particular motion was filed on thursday night until lunchtime and friday aug th due to being in court and the morning of august th and returning to his office to find the motion friday august th at one thirty pm in the mchenry despite bishop's objection the court entered an order on aug th overruling plaintiff objections in ordering the plaintiff to serve sworn responses to the twenty objected to request the mid august th at five pm in that order of august  plaintiffs objections i'm sorry defendants objections to the request of over the objection of the plaintiff's attorney to the request to have met under oath and answered twenty objected to request and that denying thirteen no knowledge of four and admitting three most importantly requests to admit number twenty nine was asking the plaintiff to admit that exhibit b and the disputed grand jury proceeding transcript they true and accurate bradman at the end just denying the authenticity of the disputed grand jury transcript that was filed all of the above creates the existence of a substantial material fact and should have precluded dismissal by the court using the death and citation set forth in the proceeding which states that if a material in genuine issue court jurisdiction here is de novo which applies to any time the court is reviewing decisions think you just count so i know you're familiar with supreme court rule three hundred and forty one however your brief doesn't come close to complying with the rule so why shouldn't this court strike brief dismissed complies with those rules it was certainly no intention on the part of the planets council to ignore the rules rather they were oversight and that disclosure is needed to prevent an injustice in another judicial proceeding or for example when disclosure is the need for disclosure is greater then the continued secrecy does it not anyone's access to these grand jury proceedings that was done by the state's attorney bernie carey and numerous occasions in the seventy's and it was followed through by state's attorney kim time when  long established positions in the release of these records is just as i said in my brief incredulous slap lawsuits those are strategic lawsuits against public participation that violate the illinois anti slapp statute known as the citizen participation act itself agree that the tests are determining one of their amended complaint violates the citizen participation participation act as laid out in illinois supreme court's decision in stand which mr bishop did reference understand home the movement in this case feel no integrity fun must st demonstrate that their acts here their publication of certain statements in the political campaign fires or infer the rise of a protected st amendment right next understand home movements again in this case illinois integrity and must demonstrate that plaintiff claims are soley based on related to or in response to the move and act in furtherance of their st amendment rights to do this the case law says that the movements must show the plaintiff claims are meritless and retaliatory that's based on think home and also the ryan case with two sided once the movements meet the burden the plants must produce clear and convincing evidence a defendant's acts were not genuinely aimed at s simple element of the palin stuff mission claims it's falsity illinois integrity fun brought forth affirmative evidence in the forms of affidavits and public referent record during the truth of the fire statement the issue another essential claim because the undisputedly public official is demonstrating that the illinois integrity fund published the flyer statements with actual malice which means that they harbored serious doubts  participated in an intelligence gathering operations on the communist party that the legion of justice gathered information using surveillance of personnel surreptitious entering into headquarters and forcible entry of pr participated in to break ins and took various property of men was involved in planning a similar break in another target organization bregman was with joseph powers on the night that mr powers destroyed the elgin church using was either involved in or planned additional legion of justice activities including forcible entry to obtain contributor lists of what were perceived as communist organizations i blog itself stated that the poster knows this fellow who specializes in terminating weasels of all kind is prices are very reasonable five thousand dollars each if you need to look like an accident ten thousand dollars each let consideration of provided any rebuttal facts contradicting the evidence presented by the illinois integrity thought in any toothpicks nineteen motion to dismiss which is what we have here once and for matters properly raised which could defeat the claim the plaintiff must then coming forward with some evidence at least establishing a genuine issue of material fact otherwise the motion will be granted the only additional burden stablished by this is the participation act on the plane of that  plaintiff is required to come forward with clear and convincing evidence that a genuine issue of material fact exists in order to defeat the motion that's the right case right development growth and positive not only have  that elitist realty case is connor after they would generally denies the truth of quote any reference contained in the disputed grand jury transcripts were turned to his being a member of the legion of justice that is a very narrow denial of threat that appear in the blog post and the paragraph two she had missed the threat to terminate the rule we're told jack frank was traced to her home by police appellant filter but any of the facts demonstrating the truth of the flyer statement and therefore the claims based on those statements are meritless pal is also completely ignoring the retaliatory analysis require understand home trial court correctly ruled that based on the potential ability of the claims which is no after the original publishers of the reform the headline articles all demonstrate that in fact the intent was retaliatory having demonstrated the merit with the retaliatory nature of the underlying claims and  t having come forth with no evidence on rebuttal whatsoever we request that the underlying ruling of the traffic court be affirmed and under the citizens participation act and she's awarded outcome can you tell us what governmental outcome where your client seeking with these flyers yes your honor give me just a moment to reference the cases if you  will there is quite a there are several cases that establish that the governmental outcome of voting and election and influencing the electorate qualifies under that favor of a political action or an election and i believe that is the case and the girl case say that without reservation and so it's your position these pliers were in fact that type of speech to assess the borders that's correct your honor the speech was political speech and the nature of the speech it was to inform motors about the quality and background history and facts of the candidates who were running for public elected office and therefore to inform the electorate about the fact necessary for them to make a so if the statements were true there is there is no fraud or slander that's correct there are if we can demonstrate not only just that they are true but under the case law that they substantially true in other words the statement is reflected in the priors capture the just insisting on the actual truth and create no more harm than the actual true statements would have cause none under illinois law which amounts to an admission of their violations now during a palance argument he stated that he is now seeking to appeal the november and december orders were guardian sanctions and however it should be pointed out that the notice of appeal only states that the order being appealed was the august st of two thousand one hundred order which just missed the case therefore this court does not have jurisdiction to yes about their arguments so i'm going without any guidance as to what exactly the how and for trying to argue this is exactly what the illinois supreme court rules were created in the purpose that they were intended to is under a two however especially in the context as though it seems that helen is seeking to recover to reverse the subsequent orders following his notice of appeal i think that the proper protocol is yes i believe that was under the  have only failed to address this issue in the st instance raise that on their own when they had ample opportunity to do so to kind of help i have to be brief and understand this issue i think i think that the problem in itself but just looking strictly at the rule here there should have been an amended notice that the deal that i think would have a more to if they're going to come in and ask for the reversal of all three orders questions taken specifically from different portions of the disputed grand jury transcripts and asked mr brightman if that those twenty allegations  was between a rock and a hard place in that we were running thirty days and i was afraid that if i did that side all those appeals my thirty days would run because the other side over writing law here and there is there is just no question that the dispute arises out of this transcript or sixty five side if bellecourt went out if they had no idea where that transcript that was attached to the criminal complaint of thomas and it is not apparent that there was any authority for that that's been the position of everybody from the beginning since one hundred and seventy five through the last number when the cook county state attorney refused to disclose any of the transcripts pertaining to that that that to me is the issue here and i asked the court to you have any questions yet so you're submitting those at the the fact that your client is disputing the correctness of that grand jury testimony is is you're basically  thank you for the question thank you i have one assuming are you endo that the transcript was incorrect would that make any difference to the issue but face and so far as unless the defendant knew that the transcript was correct presenting a grand jury transcript you claim that the transcript is incorrect and my point is if unless they thought that the transcript was incorrect and they were going to either intentionally libel or slander your client or with reckless disregard decided to use libel or slander your client what difference does it make whether the transcript was accurate or not don't you have to allege in addition of the fact that the transcript isn't correct the the elements or the intent i don't necessarily agree justice here they said it just came out not only with respect to the transcript but many of the other allegations contained within the flyers for instance the one about indictments in either party had never been invited for anything whatsoever i think that they had some kind of duty to make an justice in the in really grand jury six hundred and fifty five case where they say we have no idea where this came from and i i was practicing law back in their late sixty's early seventy's and i know what was going on and it was a lot some stuff was unlawful back in those days but that what when it's been denied and ha the case will be taken under advisement and at this position rendered at nap time i now declare the oral argument closed thank you and goodbye thank you