opinion by the illinois gaming board where the athlete in regards to the issue of the seizure of the kiosks from the get fit in morris by the illinois gaming board this case is  case about an administrative beechen see that is overstepping the bounds of its power and authority as established by the legislature specifically in regards to the publication of the well as we all know what i'm talking about here are the advisory opinion the trial court should be reversed and specifically the trial court's ruling was that it was not convinced that the court has the authority to enjoying the  so i think the courts simply when it said that it didn't think it had the authority to actually join the i g b the case law supports the fact that they certainly do which means this court in the position where it could be remanded to the trial court that because of the nature of where we're at in this proceeding i this quote should could certainly also decide whether or not the publication of the last document did actually exceed the authority of the illinois gaming board and  really through that statute there's no express power or authority that allows them to be able to publish these types of the opinions that interpret the entire criminal code not just the small portion of it that specifically the i g b to which is if we're looking at it even if we assume a day that they could have met his authority there's questions about whether or not they appropriately exercised that authority using their rule making power and the regulars here i will admit is not that crystal clear on the issue it was argued by peers you and windy city in the end that they did not they being the only game or did not follow the proper rules and it was never responded to it appears to me in the train and the transcript circumstances it certainly has the ability to remain and or has the ability to be able to decide this court has the ability to be able to decide for itself and then the issue raised by the owner giving board in their brief was this question about whether or not case scenario for peter to do it still doesn't move though because of the child general exceptions to moochers this is the first exception is it's it's a public interest exception and  about it but it clearly is on those two principles that we read here today this is not moot this is a relevant issue the second issue before the court is also an overreach of the of the powers  key and that is that the i g p officers were the ones that came in and seized these he asks and see this is mostly statutory interpretation that we're talking about here or under it under some seizure of power there's no doubt that they have some seizure power but when you're talking about seizures under because of it and because it's a gambling device or because you believe it's invalid lesion in the criminal code those investigators don't different rules apply because if you only state police come in and seize it there's a provision that says it will firstly always speak these are the ones that are holding it but also this goes to the elected official this goes to the state's attorney's office so website and then unless the court prefers a different world turns to what i call the authority question the authority of these three alone away state police officers to seize the juki os of the pla s in question what is not in question though for other issue is the legality of these types of p r s that issue was taken off the table by the plaintiffs voluntarily and we agreed to that and it's a question of the circuit court never reach for that reason this court should not and need not addressed the legal status of th of work that's beyond the scope of this appeal and the court should therefore disregard when do you see these brief which focuses largely on that legal status question mr beaumont did not  february twenty sixth team therefore cannot render effectual relief to peers who hauntings under the supreme court's decision in in re commitment of hernandez which holds that when there are intervening the subject of the website document the west document is of course the categorical liability of the he wants period to holdings cannot challenge a statement in the form of a website posting when it not talent in the legality of the position itself so the publication of the website had no effect on here to holdings it in even a publication were to recur which you will not there is no agents another approximate half are detailed or tasked to the board from the only state police they work for the board but they're paid by the state police and they paperwork and just look at computer screens lacking any power in the outside world to force our statutes through seizure seizures and other acts outside of their offices whether the  elsewhere beyond the power which makes seizures which will talk about in a minute are those resources our investigators can make arrests at gambling sites if an investigator who's paycheck comes through board be peace officers they would be able to make arrests conduct seizures a full gamut of authority and there's no private contractors and i'm more the second source of power  because they wouldn't be regulated by what's what's the point of going through our protocols and making sure the machine was tasked to get a license if it's exempt and immune from our investigation when there's no way  becoming state police officers when they are tasked to the board and working in a casino work going around on tips and information having reasonable suspicion hav so there are no questions at this point i will be back at the to start off with in terms there was a standing argument that had just been that just been made by t p and my recollection is that the first time that a standing argument has been made in oral arguments it is not investigators appointed by the board that is what they are under these appointments they are investing teachers i met saying that their investigators have to sit at a desk is a as was mentioned in the in the brief investigators is it very difficult to understand it's talking about illinois state police officers and it's also talking about that in turn revenue department officers what's interesting here is the section directly before that is twenty dash si what's funny is when you find that bt a video game that they actually doesn't refer to section twenty point seven when you're talking about investigators it refers to section twenty point six which to merely limits the investigators authority devices section twenty eight dash five of the criminal code applies and that says illinois state police officers and he'll i guess the final piece of the pie tells us that there it's necessary to know if the proper action is being taking and if the proper a rock the official is the one that's actually taking care of all of what they should namely the state's attorney's office because of that it issues  i can just address the website assured him briefly it's important to note that the circuit board did not reach the issue on the merits about the statutory authority of the board issue the three officers who see it is the us made a point here earlier that i didn't quite follow about local police being required to be part of a seizure that's an option for us as a backup it's the narrow issues before court which which involves what the state police could do under the statute if hypothetically someone were driving away from a casino with a device in the back seat that was evidently not licensed and playing here they could have their lights flashing on the sirens on because there are state police and they could all support someone reverse speeding after they leave the casino said something that i think misinterprets the way the statute works section twenty point seven is the operative provision that allows us to contract with the off it was in accordance with the law the circuit courts injunction is premised there is nothing wrong for for the business with the injunction except the authority of these state police officers who do what they did the legal question is not before the court if if the supreme court's injunction hinges in any way on loose legal issues about