he ordered her beginning the middle of may eighth consecutive cases from i believe the original record that we provided was from may twenty second one thousand two thousand and eight in seoul june fifth of two thousand and eight where judge pirro ordered her to stand  her to stand down to step away from the bench or else be held in contempt of court this went on eight different times in till june tenth of two thousand and eight and you intend there is a petition for leave to file this mandamus action with this court and on that date for fifty two cases in a row judge to rule instead weak used himself from every case the judge that missed our stepped up on and so is just th or else be held in contempt of court is a similar type of situation but if you're asking any other system public defender who is normally assigned to his courtroom no that did not happen syrian anything stated in the record in any of these cases is the  her supervisor highly row taylor you have the original supplemental record that was filed back on june tenth when the petition was filed and then you have a two volume supplemental supplemental record that was file i believe at the end of september when the reply brief was filed this court granted leave to file and all of that there is no explanation from anyone as to why the best that we have is judge to rule statement in his affidavit i believe it was paragraph four at the back of the attorney general's brief in which he stated the reason that i removed karen tower from all these cases is because of quote concerns over her ability to represent felony defendants  judges in the circuit court of cook county assistant public defenders screens by the judges in the circuit court of cook county there was an effort at that time by the public defender in place then to try and become an independent agency and what happened it was passed eighty seven one eleven the public defenders was appointed now by the president the county board with confirmation of the county board itself and it is separate and the language in the public defender act represent not the judge not judge her bell not the other judges in the fourth municipal district or the other judges in the circuit court it is up to the public defender at that time and that's where the outrage comes in that judge brown perpetrated because it was two from all of her cases and then but you're not asking this court to make a statement that drug court can never remove an attorney from representing the client area i'm not making to saying that no your honor i'm not saying that but i am based on these facts that it was certainly an abuse of discretion since there wasn't any rational given is that after in line with what you're saying absolutely but there's also a second part to it but absolutely the was he chose a replacement and that's also an invasion of the authority of the public defender he didn't simply say i'm removing the public defender from this particular case assistant public defender karen towell and then i'm leaving it to the public defender who to put in her place instead what he did is i'm removing karen talwar and i'm specifically appointing you in that case it was assistant public defender brian healy saying you are going to take over if we if we agree with what what  brazen versus family and people versus hall which also goes by the name of general order number fifteen i believe and in that case if you have an apparent conflict they can be identified on the record then that would justify a judge in us to go what will our dressing first the point of movements this isn't moved and that was the whole point that we provided the additional two volume supplemental record at the end of september judge to belle's actions in removing this cannot be done in less there is some one i take elated reason based on conflict or gross incompetence in the case at hand that's tied to that case that could then be reviewed later on in case that forty one didn't hear the necessary elements you asked the state appellate founder to go and have bad attorney we brief it because the record was eight thousand pages that attorney then again wrote a deficient brief under a r d c which this course it has set up the judge doesn't have the authority to pick and choose the sprinkle with the second over here the second part of relief your request to necessarily be there if we find it as you would have us find in the first burke namely that the trial judge abused his discretion and they have been no reason to remove the public defender with that and the issue i mean anything that we go further is in by the way you didn't you also didn't have the right is if it is not simply restricted to the situation with judge threw out as is evident by the fact that we have an amicus brief from the public guardian's office we need a standard we need the public guardian is a standard the state's attorney the attorney general because it interferes with the defender's office make that choice themselves i said so you you agree with it john yes well i would agree with what your honor is referring to that even if you find an attorney has committed gross incompetence you then can't go and designate who the replacement attorney is so as far as restricting the state of politics fandor from on me picking a particular attorney who's a staff attorney vs a contract attorney i would agree with that analysis around but then you also have the people vs how case which is an appellate court case but it basically mirrors this very situation and that case it was another system public who for lack of a better term annoyed the the court rooms and if judge bell had a problem with karen talwar the proper mechanism for him to do would be to say well maybe i have concerns over your ability to represent telling defendants in that case i refer you to the a r d c referring to another case people versus giles in that case the attorney actually was falling down drunk in the fourth from gross incompetence the attorney was removed as the attorney of record for that defendant perfectly justifiable but i ask you the hypothetical question if two weeks later that same attorney showed up in court sober with a new client and a new case the incompetence that was exhibited two weeks ago doesn't carry over it doesn't believe the over to the new cas there has to be a connection a nexus between an action that occurred by the attorney and the case at hand and that's what the outrage is here because i thought we originally provided eight transcripts where the judge ordered her to stand down or i'll put you down but in fact if you look at karen tower's affidavit there were fifteen cases in a row in which a judge howorth starting somewhere around i believe may ninth or may tenth of two thousand and eight simply said without opportunity to provide the explanation himself in his own affidavit and judge constantly else affidavit in his own supporting record he did nothing he just didn't want that attorney because he didn't want that attorney and this is not sadly a unique situation this is a situation where judges are overstepping their authorities and that is why i argue that a writ of prohibition in this case would be appropriate but the judge is overstepping his authority to say not merely that i'm the arbiter of facts or the finder of fact but i can decide who your attorney as i can decide to remove your attorney and i can decide who to replace that attorney with and that is unconscionable and that is an infringement on the very authority of the public defender of cook county that authority that was created in one nine hundred ninety one by statute and that was a quite hard frost statute down in the legislature to try and go and remove the multiple other sixth amendment issues i cited the smith case from california i'm hearing case from alaska the dirty case from michigan the weaver case from florida all of these things dictate that a judge cannot unconscionable but i'm going to respectfully disagree with him there i'm going to say that this is a  dedicated public servants who i think of both trying to do the right thing and have been both trying to do the right thing judge geraldo and mr burnett both as i said honorable people who are trying to do the right thing and have a dispute that is now he for this for any evidence in the record that would support the  appropriate to go into great detail in that affidavit which let me bring in matters outside the record except as in so far as it would be necessary to make a move in this argument so no it isn't it is not a very detailed affidavit in that regard how do how do we know that he didn't make any statement because he didn't want  attorney in a case without giving any reason now ok now i so without i didn't think you were and without having any record of the reason let's just take it as a given although you were quite frank and said it's not in the record let's take as a given the judge to rule to protect the public defender did not make a record as to his reasons for removal what is this court left with defender could possibly have done some sort of motion to reconsider and present that to a judge corral and ask him to state the reasons the public defender did not do that and judge extraordinary writs ordinarily they are not used to address abuses of discretion or to address situations in which a judge has jurisdiction to act but may act wrongful way and i think the public defender is taking a step past extraordinary here because ordinarily be undone or for mandamus that the judge be asked to do something the judge is required to do and here the public defender complains about what the judge did i number of cases but doesn't say don't do that the public defender seems to in effect be asking for an injunction to stop judge her royal from doing this or anything like this in the future that is why we asked this court which i think is expressing understandable concerns to please proceed cautiously if it does decide to grant relate in short if it decides that the really requested by the public defender is unwarranted as we suggest the court may also choose to provide guidance but  too and also for the purpose of guiding other judges who might be faced in with this situation but again there is mr finkel seems to part two this is a situation there at the time what was going to what was going on was one assistant public defender was removed there was another one assigned to the court room and as a practical matter judge hora was just saying of moving you and of course i think it was logical to point to the other one a sign that who was assigned to his court room and say well this this will be your case now i don't think he was trying to necessarily dictate assignments made by the public defender he was recognizing reality like in the giles court when one attorney from a law firm was removed the case went to the other one that was there i don't think judge threw out was trying to assume the authority to choose well the record may i think in some instances reflect which assistant public defenders are present and it would show mr hale and mr hall work so if she was and in the ended up being removed from the case it was to say exactly why i was just now i think the record does reflect but both but those were the two people available in the court room and judge corral safa david indicates concerns over the ability of one to represent felony defendants but that is i have to concede that is a possibility that the two may have been tied together to s in which reasons are provided on the record if the judge should find it necessary to remove and i believe the case law that both sides  least i'm not suggesting that but you have there are some concerns but we don't have a case before the court indicating that that is happening that i think in this situation the roadway for should be framed as naturally as possible and there are some constitutional concerns with regard to criminal defendants that would not necessarily be present for an assistant state's attorney but again if this court feels that there is a need to include assistant state's attorneys it certainly has the authority to do that i would would be the concern that it might be said mr hayes they have an opportunity to address this as well wouldn't it be an advisory opinion if we if we limited public defenders it it it could be because this is not going on in judge because this particular assistant public defender is not assigned to judge her rallies court room anymore and interestingly enough mr frankel supplemental record ended up showing in five of the eight cases that the public defender originally complained of where she was removed she ended up  well i think it is pretty well agreed especially where she did return to represent at least five of those defendants i think that's correct i think there is as your honor said some danger of an advisory opinion even with public defenders because the matter is now moot i think the court would have to find that it would be in the public interest to to go on and then decide the issue or that would be very vital question to the administrative of excuse me excuse me to title question to the administration of justice in order to go ahead and decide  amendment it was that some of the sixth amendment holdings would say that removal of defense counsel would be appropriate in situations where there is incompetence of coun where there's some type of impairment of counsel this court has recognized a conflict of interest as being another one even if the defendant is willing to accept a lawyer that's another situation than another one is where a defense attorney continuously asks for continuance is and the demands of the court schedule require that the attorney be replaced so again if this court does decide to grant some relief we would ask that the court not tie the hands of judge corral or any other circuit judge in the state from protecting the sixth amendment rights of the diff defendants in those situations i think that is very crucial i think it is very important and i see the as if there are any more questions i am very happy to address them and i'll just sum up we do believe that men  and prohibition are not appropriate in this situation because this doesn't involve a matter that is committed to judicial discretion and even if that discretion was abused mend guidance if it believes that that is important to the administration of justice this may be a case where the court could say they must doesn't fit all a bishan doesn't fit but this is important we want to provide lower courts guidance in this situation so lower court holy hearing before you do this circuit courts state your reasons for doing it and here are the types of reasons that would justify it and i believe the court could do that and that circuit judges would follow back guide supervisory authority i think you could do that and yes i think you even though this was not styled as an action for a supervisory order yes i think the court could do that and that it would be appropriate if the court believes that that type of guidance is necessary thank you very much your honors and i don't remember it off the top of my head but i actually would have it written over here but the second prong specifically is that there is a need for an authoritative decision in order to provide future guidance the third prong is the situation is likely to occur this court wrote that and holly vs mom says this court also wrote that in the sink this case which involved an election it was not considered to be an advisory opinion and sink us even though the election had already occurred here you are correct the specific removals of karen tawar has already occurred she did go and because of the later developing offense after june tenth of two thousand and eight she wound up being removed from judge bell's courtroom you have partly rolls affidavit explaining why she was removed from bath but that doesn't take it out of the realm of a good a prohibition but as far as this court's authority to go and issue a supervisor or an under three eighty three i have no dispute on that and i would agree with mr schmidt on that and just two other points  honor for purposes of rebuttal one there was a question asked about sort of that mr healey happened to be the only other person in the room that there was a room wide search for another assistant public defender since he was there that's the attorney who judged well selected to go and take over all the cases i would have to disagree with that and for that i had a point to the transcript from the captain you know case where the supervisor for both of them the supervisor who's in the fourth municipal district probably wrote taylor stepped up to try to object to try and assert earth already as the representative of the public defender to say no i don't want mr healing to be in this i want either karen talwar or i want to have they have the authority to decide who should be involved in that case and judge to raul forced her to step away from the bench to actually stand down step away or be held in contempt it's the language of judge develop it's just you know with all respect just  again i'll repeat the word outrageous telling people i'm going to put you down i'm going to hold you in contempt you've been unappointed you've been unassigned that language is just beyond the scope of authority for somebody who's a jurist and that leads me to the last point mr schmidt mentioned that an extraordinary bit is only appropriate for matters that don't involve an abuse of discretion there was no discretion here that's why we're here i would agree with i believe it was   unilateral action by a judge who felt that everything within his courtroom was totally within his control and completely ignored the authority of the public defender the authority of mr burnett and the attorney client relationship that had been built up in several click cases including one that had been pending for six or seven months and was ready to go to trial and side ready to go to a position to quote the trial judge would be involved with exercise discretion i think it's your point is that in this case there is no showing that there was any exercise scratch correct there was no discretion there was no statement there was just simply variations on the words get away step away you're no longer the attorney in this case and for all those reasons your honor we respectfully ask that this court issue a writ of mandamus or better probation and