statutes that applied to the same subject matter one of which addresses this the issues pacifically and the other of which applies only on a general basis the first statute issue is what i will refer to as the compensation statute seven thirty i'll see s five slash three dash twelve dash five the compensation statute specifically expressly addresses the extent to which income that are inmate burns from prison labor can be used to pay for the cost of the inmates incarceration and the compensation statute expressly states that the department may take an offset of a discrete portion of the prisoner's wages to use  for to pay the prisoner's cost of incarceration and it states that all other wages must be deposited in the inmates account in the compensation statute also gives the department the discretion to determine the offset ra which the department through regulation has set at three percent now the second statute issue is what i will refer to as the reimbursement statute seven thirty iles c s five slash three dash seven six the reimbursement statute is one of general application in that it generally entitles the department of corrections to seek reimbursement of assets to pay the costs of an inmate incarceration the reimbursement statute does not specifically refer to prison wages nor does it address the circumstances in which prison wages can be used to pay for the cost of incarceration if either one of these two statutes were read in isolation in a vacuum without reference to context either one of them might appear to be unambiguous but when they read together as they must be and when they conflict and they create an ambiguity in the context of this case  in this case mr hawkins worked for over twenty years in prison industry as a office furniture assembler it was through his hard labor he was able to earn and  save over eleven thousand dollars so it was undisputed below that that eleven thousand dollars was soley derived from his prison wages it was also undisputed that mr hawkins had already paid the three percent offset as he earned his income so the eleven thousand dollars sitting in his bank account was soley derived from prison wages and was entirely in excess of the three percent offset that is allowed under the compensation statute and this is of course is a relatively unique situation most prisoners are not able to save up that much money over the overtime but it is exactly what the prison employment system is designed to encourage to work and to save and to be responsible in forward thinking th unambiguous but applied to certain factual circumstances creates a latent ambiguity or an absurd result that requires a more reasonable interpretation and in this case what happened was because m able to save up more than ten thousand dollars he was flagged for a reimbursement action under the department's protocols and the department then filed an action under the reimbursement statute to collect mr hawkins the savings even though they were entirely derived from prison wages and even though the department had already taken the three percent off set as a result it's a unique situation revealing a an unanticipated situation where a prisoner has assets that justify reimbursement action but the assets entirely represent prison wages there is need priority in terms of the ability to reach the  department has raised the four thousand dollars wildcard except exemption but there are other exemptions that a prisoner may be able to take advantage of that would come before this statute i e to be honest i'm not sure what degree that they would  apply in this case of course what has to happen to get a reimbursement action there actually has to be an action there has to be a judgment and at that point there would be a civil judgment against the prisoner for the amount of the cost of incarceration and then it would be going after the money that has you know yes i think the prisoner would be able to claim exemptions once there was a judgment against him the state would try to enforce the judgment the prisoner could claim exemptions based on various factors  compensated if the wages are given to the prisoner but then completely taken away before they can be spent he has no ability and being happens i would agree that that is not a prisoner is not being compensated it's basically a shell game in which the wages are given there's a three percent offset taken and then in the end analysis the state comes back and tries to take everything the full cost of incarceration which in every case is going to greatly exceed the amount of the prisoner earned through prison employment so as a result there isn't going to be that the hard work that was put in to save that money wall beef or not w impact on people and it's also going to impact the degree to which prisoners not only choose to work but the degree to which they save if inmates know that even inmates who might choose to work even though they know that they might be working to pay their jail or they will not have the same incentive to save for use upon their eventual release which was one of the motivating factors behind this that the sponsor of the bill that added the offset provision to the route to the compensation statute expressing noted that we the money that way the commissary yes there were deductions made he could spend the money in various ways you even after doing this you still get up with the correct so what if what it really represented was it was true savings this was over more than a twenty year period working to save to save money and which is exactly what the system is designed to accomplish and it's designed to encourage inmates to learn a trade to promote habits of work and responsibility these are these are goals that are not simply ideas these are expressed statutory goals that are written into the corrections code section three dash twelve ash one the legislature has specifically identified rehabilitation these rehabilitative goals as important fundamental purpose of the prison employment system and also as the legislative history shows through the sponsor of the bill that out of the offset clause the also this is signed only to take a and the legislature here has expressly identified its intent not just in the legislative history but actually in a statute the corrections code seven thirty i also see yes five slash three dash twelve dash one sets forth the goals of prison employment and that statute mediately perceives the compensation statute so this isn't by reference so leave to external factors or legislative history this is actually the legislature saying this is why we have the person employment system and this is how it's supposed to work there's a three percent offset however i would also say that in the context of this case when statutes read together create an ambiguity or applied to a situation in a conflict in manner that reference to the legislative history is also relevant and useful and appropriate and in this case further confirms that the legislature's intent was not to to have reimbursement statute eat up everything a prisoner earns in wages but rather to allow the prisoner work to save and to provide the incentive for the prisoner to do that and give them the means to help themselves upon their release  which we believe is an arbitrary result there's a figure that's plucked out at ten thousand just so happened that in this case mr hawkins was unfortunate enough i would say the money to save more money he crossed the threshold in an action was filed had he gone to the commissary a couple extra times this would have been filed that's a very arbitrary result and it's a result that punishes ironically the prisoners who body the goals of the prison employment system the most the prisoners who are the most diligent about working and saving are the ones who will in the end be punished under the department's protocol but there's nothing really to say that the department couldn't apply this rule to prisoners who are making who are less than ten thousand dollars and that creates its own set of done from labor correct then in that instance it would be taken so it's only because the stage and laws for prison labor and to encourage prisoners to work correct correct ah on the outside people who obviously have numerous incentives to work when they're incarcerated then they have assets built up already there isn't the same public policy issue though of encouraging prisoners to work to develop good work habits to learn a trade and to and to save money for use upon their release and that ultimately is the goal of the prison employment system it wasn't designed to create this fund by which the state might be able three percent of the time  to to defray the cost of incarceration that might be an incidental goal it might be one goal but the real fundamental purpose is to provide for rehabilitation and it knows the prisoner here have control of the bank account other than the three percent or so that's being withheld once it gets into his account can he directed be paid over to a spouse or children or child support or anything else i believe there are department regulations in terms of the what it can be used for a there's a commissariat i don't know if there is limitations in terms of whether it's totally unfettered but but there is an ability to spend the money i believe there's the ability to to provide support for others family members and the like  presumably had he known about the internal protocol of ten thousand dollars that would was not published maybe that would be something that you would have done simply to get below the threshold he could spend it down to avoid the situation although it correct although  that is not something the department advertises in terms of what the protocol is and it also creates a very arbitrary system in which prisoners are essentially not encouraged to work and save as much as you can but essentially to the game the system well you have over ten thousand dollars me to spend money now on this or that or the other thing to make sure i don't cross this threshold or that threshold is the threshold going to change and really with an internal protocol there's nothing requiring the department to enforce that that the statute itself doesn't say the reimbursement yes it is actually going to be a continuing problem not only in terms of his inability or effecting his future income but also his ability to get a job to get an apartment he's going to have were hundred fifty five thousand dollars judgment over his head  when the state knew at the time that it prosecuted this action that he only had eleven thousand dollars in assets and later it was determined that that entire eleven thousand dollars was soley derived from his prison wages which our contention is that those wages could not be used at all to pay for the cost of incarceration beyond the three percent offset so it's a case where there's a lemon thousand dollars at stake and we contend even that eleven thousand dollars should be reached but even if it could it simply does not support or or provide any justification for a four hundred fifty five thousand dollars judgment which the prisoner will in no way be able to satisfy and will only provide will constitute a future burden on his attempt to  reintegrate into society and in addition to public policy concerns or also rules of construction just normal rules of construction that support mr hawkins interpretation of the two statutes for example it's well established that that when a statute specifically identify certain categories of things and then uses the word other that the word other should be interpreted to reach back to the those specific categories and so in this case the department is relying on section eat three of the reimbursement statute which enumerate certain categories of income such as workers compensation pension benefits social security benefits and then says income from any other source under that rule under the rule  sue them generis the other should be refer should be read as referring to those specific categories and not to prison wages which are not identified in the reimbursement statute and are in fact specifically addressed under a different statu specific application namely the compensation structure and under that statute the department is limited to three percent of the amount that is earned and reading that statute as controlling would be consistent not only with the rules of construction but more importantly with the legislative intent behind not only the compensation statute but also the entire system of prison employment and as in the stewart versus industrial commission case this court should look to the  should realize that the weight of the statutes apply in the context of this case is creates an ambiguity that there is a conflict and that it and that the result as in store would be an absurd result and that was really what motivated the stewart  k even though the court acknowledge that there was the plain language of the statute dictated one result and even though the court acknowledged that there was no express exception contained in the statute the court nevertheless held that because there were applying the language as written would lead to a what it called a quote absurd result but that in and of itself could create what the court called a latent ambiguity and the court could assume that the legislature simply neglected to consider the impact of the language that it used in the particular facts before it and that is a direct analogy to this case where the language of the statute actually we have two statutes in this case which conflict created an ambiguous result something that perhaps the legislature didn't consider in the way that the two statutes would intersect and in fact person in a unique status such as mr hawkins but in any event applying the language as in the manner that the department advocates would create an absurd result it would undermine prison employment the prison employment system it would effectively read out the compensation statute as a as a meaningful statute it would create perverse incentives that the court should therefore interpret the statutes in the manner that mr hopkins proposed this thank you thank you counsel any counsel i know i stated your name and technically you should state your name for the record i'm sorry you are christopher turner thank you because at that code section the reimbursement statute expressed explicitly authorizes department to recover undisputed that this defendant had eleven thousand dollars in his bank account right track and at least we heard from opposing counsel that there's an internal policy within the d o c that there's not pursue claims against the defendant that would have less than ten thousand dollars likewise for that's correct as well all right so then it also seems indisputable that if this particular defendant and this is keeping with those prior questions had blown two thousand dollars on gambling and cigarettes or whatever in the well in the deal see that that person would have nine thousand dollars and wouldn't even be pursued by dio see it as a result of having eleven thousand dollars he ends up with roughly a four hundred fifty six thousand dollars judgment against that's like was really correct that is true so my question is do you see any problems from a general and if you look at the reimbursement statute plain language of that statute the intent there is to treat this debt like other debts they incorporate all the other limitations on collection actions under illinois in federal law but otherwise they probably they provide  a duty on all inmates to recount to compensate the the state for that money that we the taxpayers pay and the large judgment in this in this particular instance has to do with the amount of time that mr hawkins has been incarcerated it's been a just said that standard exemptions applies to all debtors have a four thousand dollar exemption right there and they that allows them to spend that money as they need it now usually it's not prefers going to be perverse some is going to go out and spend it on gambling they're going to spend it on affairs if an attorney didn't give advice to this prisoner and suspended down under ten thousand dollars because if you spend it down under ten thousand dollars maybe you can have some fun and they're never going to come after you if you have ten thousand and one dollars it's going to cost you four hundred  fifty six thousand well i can't speak to legal malpractise but certainly yes there is an insult to use the money in some fashion and most most inmates are going to be using that money for spending on selves there's nothing again wrong with that huge spending on their life whether it's on buying a television set or other other kind of items and get the commissary or spending it on their loved ones or if they have other obligations other kinds of legal obligations as well just as freeman had asked before about whether or not if they had money for instance for legal dependents or alimony  as councils noted darger exemptions which have to go to alimony payments and child support payments and those would be incorporated into this but as well in the same administrative directive that sense the ten thousand dollar the ten thousand dollar triggering amount also  the the department recognizes that people will have these obligations particularly for legal dependents those go first they look at the if to the extent that they're using the money to pay those people that are that money they look at and though it whether or restitution order or act or a tax  mistaken work there are two different triggering of the answer the wild card exemption the four thousand dollars buffer is in court is a legal exemption under the personal property exemption statute which is available to all debtors in illinois for all debts that is in and he's a wide variety of other ones as well for instance or is homestead exemption there is her retirement plans today but the for the wild card gives you a four thousand dollars buffer of assets that we can the department cannot change that they cannot go out and they cannot get the exempt money so that the ten thousand dollars trigger more then not exactly it does in the dozen sets it has a directive which says offset this affirmative mandate it says you have to offset a portion of these wages before you pay them however then it does come back to the later funds which are traceable to that to the  thousand dollars at any given time just like other illinois debtors they have this four thousand i'm sorry or is it yes you can use a four thousand dollars at any time just like other debtors who have the exemption what they use the exemption for is to meet all their needs or whatever else they want to without money they spend that money to meet their obligations living life whatever they need to do on an ongoing basis so it's not a set four thousand dollars it's just tacked wants it's a buffer to an ongoing basis to meet your needs you spend it down but the buffer still exists so he's had years of of use of that money whatever use it would be in addition to saving it he could spend it on loved ones spend it i'm self he's had he's been compensated he's had use of that money for a significant amount of time and actually reached a high level because it's one well first it was specifically with the offset provision that's a provision of purpose of that which is again reflected in the section three twelve one which provides for purposes of the of the work program the prison work program is to work with the exemption statute most prisoners ongoing basis have are getting that money they still want to work for that money to use that money to support their loved ones and even beyond the financial incentives they still there's incentives in order to learn a skill in order just like in vocational training programs and just like in the educational programs in prison where you don't get that same compensation they still have an incentive to participate in those incentive to see well they they do have incentive to save the least until the mount would be triggered at that point they don't have the sort of say they would want to use it they don't really have any incentive to see other than what the law requires is a is an exemption because that policy could be changed them are correct you are just like with other illinois debtors that  some something well you did get a decent housing you know set yourself up a little bit that's gone what's not against out you start the fourth be on the four thousand dollars just like with any other debt or any other debt yes that that's the problem i mean but that was a policy decision the general assembly has made with the reimbursement statute it's if you're here don inherited that money or as your as you just before if you had worked before having nothing to do with this crime had gone out work hard maybe made a good investment and had this money that money would also be subject to the reimbursement statute there's no question about that however the difference only difference here is that is money that we start with in the prison work system is this judgment  bankruptcy i don't know your honor but it does the same limitations of federal law and collection actions do apply so i i just don't know if that's what of the requirement you can if there is no judgment  subsection here mr turner the what you refer to as the four thousand dollar wild card exemption or exception i couldn't quite catch it but that only comes into play at the time of the judgment is that right that's try to determine which would mean that it sets an exemption that's applied against the judgment correct against and again against the actions that are in and one other question to follow up on justice birch question about the purpose of the three percent that is to reimburse the state market prevailing wage rate and and you can pay the three percent and the money you make unlike other incarcerate persons who do not work they're not going to be subject to future collection actions are they this money was in the state bank of lincoln is there anything that would prevent the departure of the prisoner in this case from directing that that money be paid to loved ones of even all of it or at least to give below the ten thousand dollar  have when you when you've been paid the money afterwords at that point you still have the exemption under the reimbursement structure itself way incorporates illinois general you'll have this money to use for a significant amount of time there will always be the four thousand dollars buffer or whatever it will end up being at that and the however the reimbursement statute it it deals with what is the legal question in this case it is what type it identifies deals of what types of assets are available in order to recover incarceration costs and uses a very extensive and inclusive definition whether or not that retirement age really violates the age discrimination under the human rights act you could say that is a factual matter that's more specific but when you look at the legal question here about which one these two statutes is more it's the discrimination statute which more specifically is going to the legal question here the legal issue what is you know what what is prohibited under the a matter of discrimination but here it's a three you would have group three twelve those who have reimbursed provisions in then it is and also it has with like a sort the offset provision does is just an affirmative mandate to directing the department to deduct wages it says nothing about and he sort of limitation on the ability to recover later flater funds which are traceable to those waiters so there is just on the face of it there is no conflict this is unlike an exemption statute like the personal property exemption statute or the various other statutes where general somebody would always uses as expressed terms you're exempt exclude limit and says exclusion from either a judgment an attachment or collection action but even assuming if that there hundred ninety five that reimbursement statute was incompletely it was amended and completely written to have all the relevant language we have today except to the extent that in two thousand and two they once again amended the statute to ask the specific phrases about income coming from any source whatsoever so the if the later manifestation of ten to the extent you were to find a conflict would be the reimbursement statute goner my time is right you are so just like say for all the reasons fear in the reason set forth in the department's brief we asked the court to affirm the appellate court's judgment in favor of the department in the hold that the department may attach mr harkins bank account to satisfy the judgment against him thank you thank you mr turner to address the points that counsel raised in support of the department of corrections one of the main points that the department was relying on somewhat ironically at this point is the four thousand dollars wild card exception and i say ironically because the department did not apply that exemption when it sought reimbursement from mr hawkins the complaint that was filed against him sought the full cost of his incarceration there was no deduction for the four thousand dollars wild card in fact initially the complaint sought in addition to it actually sought to recover again the three percent that mr hawkins had already deposited had already been withdrawn from his account based on the net result exemption mean an exemption from a judgment collection it's an exemption from from collection as i understand or the judgment would be for the full amount of the exemption is from collection that is true my point only being that the department itself doesn't say oh well we have to let the prisoners have their four thousand dollars department goes after everything it looked at but if they took the judgment for four thousand dollars less they would still have an exemption for four thousand election but they know that that is true although the department theoretically could explain to prisoners were allow configure its internal policies to reflect that four thousand dollars sanction in any event even if we acknowledge that there are the prisoners are going to be able to claim it there's going to be four thousand dollars exemption in this case mr hawkins worked for over twenty years and after twenty years of hard labor he was able to save up eleven thousand dollars that means that if under the four thousand dollar wildcard exemption the state could come in and take away at least seven thousand dollars of that that's over a decade worth of hard work allowing the state to do that is not going to it's not going to encourage positive attitudes towards work it's not going to facilitate a positive work ethic it's not going to encourage prisoners to work and also in many cases prisoners may come into the system with already four thousand dollars in assets they might have a car they might have a little bit of money saved up for those prisoners they would have absolutely no incentive to work because they would have already met the four thousand dollars wild card exemption anything on top of that the state would be able to take every dime they  made it would also not encourage seedings the four thousand dollars a plan this four thousand dollar exemption will encourage prisoners to save at least not very much and to the extent they do they will always be concerned about these arbitrary limits instead of worrying about how hard do i work how much do i invest in myself they'll be worried how much do i have and can't save up too much or i might get hit with a reimbursement action and also should just be noted that this this really isn't an untouchable fund this isn't something that's preserved in the department regulations this is something that prisoners have to claim for themselves in this case mr hawkins was fortunate enough to have pro bono representation he secured the four thousand dollars wildcard exemption but that likely won't be true for all the prisoners that state will try to take everything and in many cases it very well might get them turning to some other issues that were raised by coun other issue about the four thousand dollar exemption that we should note too is we're not just talking about the seven thousand dollars it's taken away currently we're also looking at a judgment that was imposed for over four hundred fifty thousand dollars that itself is going to have consequences down the line separate apart from not having the money right now that everything that he makes in the future when he's released his ability to get a house his ability to secure a job they're all going to be compromised by this judge do you know best dischargeable in bankruptcy i do not first i'm not a bankruptcy lawyer but that even even with that even if it were getting to bankruptcy on your record isn't going to help you find a job it's not going to help you secure an apartment it's not going to put you in good stead when you're trying to rejoin society to get  credit and that's the whole purpose of the of the system is to encourage people to have a means to become to reintegrate into society society to have the skills to have the resources to have the work ethic to become a responsible member of society in the departments contributing to the costs of incarceration as being one of the goals of the prison employment system i think it's notable first that the that the clause says contribute to not give everything you earn too but also it's only one of the goals statute also specifically identifies promoting habits of work and responsibility and teaching inmates a new skill those are clearly rehabilitative goals the state wants to take one of the goals of the prison employment system and use it to run roughshod over all the other goals of the system we believe the more consistent route to interpret these two statutes is to say yes prisoners will contribute to the cost of their incarceration by virtue of the three percent offset and in that regard it should be noted that the clause in three one that was added to say contributing to the cost of incarceration is a goal that was added to the statute at the same time the offset cost was added so that's why that's in there it's to reflect the fact the offset clause in title's the department to get some of the in terms of the  e the offset provision one thing that's also notable about the compensation statute is there's a section in there that states that if a if an inmate files a frivolous lawsuit that the department can seek up to fifty percent of the costs from the from the prisoner's assets it's telling that even in that instance even when a prisoner files a frivolous lawsuit even then the legislature recognizes world state you can't get all of what they are and you can only go after half of them and in for just preserve regular incarceration costs the state is limited to three percent again it's further confirmation that the legislature intended from the start that the offset that the department has said three percent is the rate that prisoners have to transfer use their wages to pay for incarceration costs and that is an excellent point why is it three percent of the department really believe that they are entitled to get back everything or at least everything up to the four thousand exemption assuming the inmate claimed it why would it be twenty five percent why would it be thirty percent or why wouldn't it be fifty percent which was the percentage that the department acknowledged in the reimburse in the compensation statute  that applied in cases a frivolous lawsuits with this reveals is the fact that the department understood from the start that it was not able to get past the three percent or at least past wasn't shouldn't be able to collect everything that an inmate it that is not an internal policy that this court needs to defer to this is simply a litigation position that the department has taken in the context of this case when faced with the unusual facts of this case where mr hawkins has earned more than ten thousand dollars in prison wages in terms of whether there is a wish statute is more specific i think the i think that the department is playing a little bit of a word game here the legal issue here is to what extent can prison wages he used to pay for the cost of incarceration that is exactly the issue that section three dash twelve dash five speaks to it talks about prison wages it talks about costs of incarceration and it says that you can use three percent of the wages to pay for incarceration that's the issue that's presented here the reimbursement statute applies on a general basis it is not a specific statute and i should note that in terms of the priority of the statutes in terms of when they were enact the only thing that was added to the reimbursement statute realistically that's that's a note to the department is the definition of assets and that it was a technical change it was in a situation where the depart were the were the department or the legislature is this issue about the definition of assets but as noted in my original argument under the doctrine of usage on generis when you read that definition of assets what it says is it lists specific categories and then says income from other such any other source under this rule of construction when you read that the word other should be to should be interpreted to to relate back to the specific categories and over other types of income like this not to other types of income not to every other type and not to specifically to prison wages which aren't discussed in the in the reimbursement statute are discussed in the definition of assets although it would have been very easy for the legislature to include bat and  piece number one one zero seven nine to agenda number four department of corrections versus