mistake constitution section twelve or section one hour one section twelve and under the fourteenth amendment because you the government is the employer the government in unconstitutional it creates a different class of persons in that situation for example the difference in this case in the penalty is a knowledge that if in this situation mr san home is working to a private focused on which was preventing illinois citizens when they are participating in government affairs petitioning associations speech things that are extraordinarily important in a democratic republic that they be protected mexico hawaii where the they state quite clearly in their anti slash statutes we are moving the detection to people who are tissue name or who are participating within the four walls of a government meeting room and that's reach the question at this point here as to whether the c p a may in general be overly boff because here we have a situation of addressing exactly what the legislature activity they want on the airwaves of my client's radio station to discuss the first school board meeting where they presented  allegations of the complaint allege going back to that to her task number one were the activities of the citizens and was this involving participation in government speech petition the answer based on the  ale actions of mr sam's complaint the answer was yes then the church trying to do the second part of the test was this action were these actions by the citizens genuinely aimed at particular in some kind of government result here today the census suggest it's merely a complication of the government meetings on immunity provisions that are given people who have allegedly defamed others off easy much broader than that and we know stated if the legislature wanted to put language into the c p a that said it only applies to people who are making statements at government meetings they could've done so now that would make a whole lot of sense though because if the intent is to protect people who are potentially in the government then we have to understand how the real world of petitioning works it might be one neighborhood going to then another the prototypical slapp suit is when a developer wants to build a highrise the neighbors don't want  if it was if there was a good faith basis to believe this in the people who really want to get on get some relief and happy coach fired well then they can approach the school board and the answer isn't for that coach to sue them the answer is for the complaint alleged that they were being aged in political speech in petitioning and otherwise seeking that assistance of the government but it was done as a sham it was they didn't really want the relief that they claim they were seeking to get a fire they simply didn't want to die and they wanted to defame the heck out then if mr santorum had alleged that his complaint the court taking those allegations is true would have said the c p a provides no defense here he didn't make those allegations or if he made those allegations and there was a limited discovery list the c p a calls for on that issue and his claims were borne out we brought a summary judgment motion once again the trial or i would say the gentleman discuss disputed facts show that you did i think in that case you're on what you would do is you if you're if you're the coach who's facing these allegations and you want to bring a complaint against these people because you feel that it's untrue and that you've been defamed and you file a complaint that you say the information believe these folks had no basis to make those allegations there's no truth to them they were brought as a sham they were brought because the people wanted to get me fired that they were brought because they simply wanted to harm me and then under the c do discovery on that very issue whether the intent of the people who were petitioning the government or who were engaging in some kind of government related activity were doing in for jane and purposes the c it it certainly is not as easy as it was before the c p a came into existence but that's because the legislature determined that people should have the right to speak about matters of public concern and they should only not have that protection if they are doing it for sham purposes if they're simply trying to defame somebody and more they're using the cover of some kind of legislative proceeding some kind of government action often to take advantage of the c p s protections that the c p a expand citizens rights to participate in government but the illinois legislature decided that in a democratic republic there are few if any things more sacrosanct allowing the citizenry to case that was decided in this district in two thousand who want this court held that the norm into doctrine does not apply in this situation it relied on the u s supreme court case of mcdonald v there was additional briefing there was an additional oral argument and that therefore the judge ruled that after the ninety day timeframe patrol the nine day timeframe is in place to protect people who face slaps in the c with the motion to dispose of the c p a so then the question becomes what is in connection with me on the good if there are there is a little bit of the ambiguity there even because it in the manner of the lower court to hear the report here said the only thing you get you don't get for a case in tape you responding to discovery and incidentally the discovery that was issued in this case was general discovery before the motion to dismiss pursuit of the those other grounds he simply said he didn't even get those out of grass course we have filed those to protect ourselves on a motion to dismiss and protect those claims and we believe that we should be entitled to that full measure of damages rather than just the normal narrow sliver because that