referred to as the suite of functions in this particular instance mandatory arbitration funs which part i think we all agree funded by litigants fees that are paid in as part of a civil filing as issue there was a lawsuit initially filed some years ago on the first time the sweeps took place the supreme court if they have points it is a one time issue there were no court funds swept ok so the court never dealt with the issue under crocker whether or not judicial funds could be taken in made into general revenue when there was an initial sweep if we look at in this is i believe in the record the comment was well it was a one time deal  circuit court order which may or may not be of binding effect outside of cook county b state may take the position i can't speak for them and it has an issue  they have not yet oh well it is capable and we can we said of the dawn rolls case in the others is it moot because as this particular one was spot you know it's interesting if you look at the transcript judge parker was that i this is an issue that should go up i'm a trial court right and the governor and the state treasurer may decide or the legislature we're not really this may bind us in cook county but we're not in cook county we're state agency or worse  and we're going to do it absent precedent from a reviewing court or frankly from the supreme court and this is why when it was declared unconstitutional this little trouble normally worst if you do is declared unconstitutional either as applied or overall there's an appeal by the attorney general if the statute is stricken down or the state's attorney if it's a local ordinance declared constitutional the only reason not to do it here is to provide the ability him let's be practical we can do it all over again and sooner or later the other issue isn't force if we prevent people from getting paid you know i can have too many people coming up to chill inches nobody cases and one of the issues is is it capable of repetition we know here that it took place once there was frankly a promise made by think was governor blagojevich who of course had longer with us we wouldn't do this again and they do it again in the absence of a forty one of the functions of the court system very respectfully is to provide precedent if nothing else if you look at the jorgensen case of remember that was the cola cost of living protection from having fees which are not supposed to be used as general revenue under rocker and under d and her and many other cases the legislature is position is we don't have to follow the law because the executive branch chooses all again a point you because the attorney general of the state of illinois chooses not to protect the court and i'll be candid judge if if that's the attorney if the attorney general was successful you may not find another night in shining armor this was a hard fought case this nonsense about oh we reluctantly said give it back is nonsense we were fought every step of the way we were told we couldn't even be in the court system  question on it it's not his house he use oppose any other person this is a thirty seven year member of the bar i believe with my obligation to assist the court in an act which in the jorgensen language relegated this court to a non entity with no power to enforce the laws the laws were being ignored yes to the judicial branch and perhaps i shouldn't have done it and perhaps the attorney general is correct if people can't come in and do it the court this court cannot initiate litigation so you're the arbitrator you can't become a player the supreme court has never initiated a lawsuit to protect itself it must rely upon either an attorney general special attorney general appointed which they refused to do here or a member of the bar steps up years and in years in the insulting comment on the record as well i guess miss morwitz is an alcoholic because this helps the alcoholic moyer's betsy added to the attorney general took in this case before the court system and towards l a p d it's called it's our money the court since we choose not to step up and represent the court even today when the issue of substantial interest is there he attorney general's position is the court is not entitled to a lawyer because they choose not to represent the court that they have no problem ruling on judicial pay raises three years ago to protect and how was it dumbass that it wasn't done by the court it should have been done by the attorneys i'm a judge you know it was done yes and who paid for it the judges not that was not the state ignoring the statute that was a challenge to a stage in georgia so the governor reef used to follow a wall what should've happened rather than having individual judges each take up for a thousand dollars and the state deciding to pay for part of the so a special attorney general should have been appointed to represent the judicial system paid for just like the defense of the other two branches were it was paid for by state funds this court has become the stepchild of the system by virtue of the fact that the attorney general believes they have a unilateral power not to represent the court not  challenge what may be an improper statute when this case came up we asked the attorney general and it's in the record that perhaps somebody should be appointed to represent the interests of the court just like they stand here today their instead of tapping the thousands of judges in illinois to pay for the defense of the fact that the governor refused to follow the law if the governor refuses to do something the legislature gets a paid if you look at the decision in the environmental protection agency sixteen zero one zero a second the page three hundred three twenty eight it says the court can appoint a special attorney general you're told that only the attorney general  they have to appoint a special attorney general they can't have for instance mr burke in theory then could stand here in argue on and off his briefs just like we used to do in mood court he could stand here and say you know what those fees in interest should be paid back to the court then frankly i think the argument made by the attorney general that they're the only one who can represent state agencies including the courts when the courts is really a party in interest here  argument is what's not really the party in interest has soared i'm sorry that's why i characterize it these record funds and if this court chooses to do nothing maybe next time no one will step up to the plate and the court will become exactly what we said in jorgensen a third and inferior branch of this government but it's all as it is i don't think so sir i disagree well i don't think we need to say that i first i think frankly as you heard i don't see how this is  general are you appointed no judge the court we're not appointing anybody we have the exclusive power to do it and the treaty to thought he couldn't do it is that your plan he didn't feel he had the power if you look at his decisions so i have no power to give you money i have no power to appoint anybody anything that's the attorney general we're challenging that because if that's true i don't think the whole e p a s as limited as the court believes it does disk discuss in their particular case whether there was a conflict it does stand for the proposition the court has the power to do it it actually says that initially it is clear that the other court and the discretion both billowing here that the court does not need a lawyer the court cannot have no more your appointed by the state and further and it's right in their briefs the court is not implicated in this case because the court is no interest in where the funds were originally they have no interest in the fact that we're currently using court fees as general revenue by keeping the interest which is also improper but according to them you don't get there because i have no right to raise that for the court i'm just an officious intermeddler and this court in the court system doesn't get a lawyer and we can strain all over the place to make sure if that mr kerr c e o on a principle more first of all that's correct under crocker they have no right to this money and if the court chooses to side with the state don't come back and do it again and they'll keep doing it because no and this is not a court of claims is an arm of the legislature it is not well first of all the issue is before you put this they've chosen not to appeal it they have we asked for the ruling of the trial court the crocker versus maybe the state wants you to decide that the court never had the power to deal with this they did of course not brief i can argue off my brief this isn't a claim this isn't a tort claim against the state which is what deals with under the federal and state constitution you can file a claim against the state of illinois this is a no different than any other declaration that a statute is unconstitutional they have is not they took place in the judicial system not is part of a claim against the state dealing with a court the court of claims would then be in a position of yes you know what was done before the court system well wouldn't need to find it can look at williams or incorrectly decided to do no because they deal with distinct issues they're not our issue here they don't deal with the declaratory judgment they don't deal with work performed before the court on issues relating to the constitutionality of a will judge if this court wants to this court can find many reasons to deny the issue of c s bad also has a public policy impact and i would urge you to publish it because they at will then to make sure nobody else waste their time defending the court system right now i'm involved in the case where the county refuses to use funds given to it for court protection the argument i guess could be made is what am i doing representing the court there maybe i should be asked all the time if you have a client who challenging the fact that we were not applying and we're asking to be appointed the court going to point to do so i don't question that i would also suggest to this court that as a matter of public policy encouraging the attorney general to treat this court as if it has no rights at all is something i would suggest is not the precedent  that there are a lot of statements that were made that are not supported by the record and there are a lot of statements that are in fact an accurate in fact and with respect to the attorney general's role and her role in this litigation and who she represents and how she does it there's none of the accusations that were just made or in fact true nature in general has never refused to represent the court system that the air i see is one of our clients frequently a client  ours the a o i see has been kept apprised of this litigation has been given an attorney walled off from myself and the other attorneys representing the defendants has read the briefs and through that attorney and attorney of the attorney general i have been informed that they do not feel that their interests are implicated in this appeal and so they have nachos and to intervene the same is true in the circuit court level one specially appeal that would be true because we got the money back and we returned to the plaintiff in the plaintiff class all sums transferred into the general revenue fund since the inception of the segregated fine so that's the complaint we received it was a complaint for damages to be paid out of the general revenue fund by the treasurer in the comptroller that's the that's the claim that we defended we said they're not entirely that money they have no standing to seek it there is a number of defenses we raised at the summary judgment hearing the circuit court said i think this money should have been swept i think this is the virus the separation power sweetest money so i'm going to give it back to the court system i'm not going to give it to the plaintiffs i'm not going to grant them any of the relief in their complaint but i am going to do you know what i think the constitution demands and move back to the court system and that's what the court did and we did not appeal that doing now a lot of the plaintiffs sort of speculate as to why we didn't feel that really it's all unfounded there it's unfounded speculation as to why that that ruling was not appealed then and and the attorney client privilege obviously prevents me from responding to that speculation the the the decision to not appeal that was obviously made in conjunction with the client and a lawyer and it was a tactical strategic decision there were a number of reasons that went into and that's all i can really say but it i s categorically not true that there was a conspiracy or an intent to preserve the right to sweep the funds again that that simply was not a factor in the decision not to appeal that interfere with people's right to get in court you can pile up the fees and so they really write an article one section twelve which is the the way to access justice freely so and they said you know if you're going to put a fee and get into court it's got to be related to the court system because then people can get in and that issue you know if that's what was decided to crack the idea that proper would dictate that interest and those fees has to remain in the court system this is it is a stretch from the rationale because what they said was if you add fees people are going to be barred at the door but of course if they paid their fees they have no interest or not barred at the door any more they back says just as freely and without interest where the interest on those fees goes whether it goes in general revenue or whether it stays in the court system is now relevant to article one section twelve whether people can access justice freely still cracow really doesn't say anything about where interest on an me well let me let me say two things either one of the court would not have actually lost the money because the way the statute worked which will sweep the feeds out of the court system but had to be a statute said if the feet with the if the from from which we've taken the money  has an expense that's been authorizing appropriated for women to move money back to pay it so there was always enough money in the funds to pay all of the authorized appropriated expenses that that just as a matter of what the what the statute in the record says fees has to go to the court of claims and that's the truth that's the case regardless of whether the substance claim of the claim regarding sweeps itself was proper beach indicating the circuit court when you move into getting money from the from now and the reason for that is the supreme court has said quite clearly that absent a statute or a contract for fish if they there is no legal basis for fish for shifting fees onto an opponent in any litigation is called the american  rule and they quite clearly said that just because something is done in the public interest is no reason to shift fees that's not adequate the legislature has to pass a statute or there has to be a contract the only exceptions to this and this is the exception that plaintiff relied on below was the third party exception which deals with a real estate he's abandoned that on appeal so so that's no longer in play there's a common front to sack exception which is again plaintiff abandon that said i don't recovery whatever the recovery was so it's like an unjust enrichment kind of recovery so you get it from whoever benefited you're getting your fees from them and he says repeatedly and i list all the places in the record on page eight we don't want our fees from the lawyers assistance program fund or from the mandatory arbitration we don't want to diminish the court funds we don't want the so if you're if you disavow collecting your fees from the fund then you're just as valid in the common fund theory there's no other that that's how it works and so if you don't get it from there and the court themselves after reading the briefs indicated to their attorney and attorney general's office that they believe that common fund theory has been disavowed and so their interest in this l was not implicated because plaintiffs were not seeking money from a common fund so i think if you look at page eight of my brief which is where they really say the place is in the record where he says we don't want the money from that fine i think i think that the common fund theory has been abandoned that's been abandoned what what's what's been proffered instead is this new theory this this retroactive special assistant attorney general theory but but that one fails because because a because a lawyer can't hire is client there's a lawyer can come into the court and say i did something for you and now i want you to hire me as your lawyer because i've done it that's it's there's just no there's just no rationale for that and  situations in my brief to road for greece where we said to the court you know it's possible that this is going to implicate the court system here perhaps we should notify the oh i see at one point an attorney from the attorney general's office  at the time the a o i see again withdrew their request for representation said that there's no need to file an appearance on our behalf so there's always been you know a willingness to represent the court on behalf of the attorney general's office  and we have procedures for doing that when there's potential conflicts and then nobody's really challenge those procedures they're quite extensive and they've been in place for quite a while and the court has never none of our clients including a i c has ever complained that i'm aware supposed request for a permanent injunction and without a ruling i cited in my brief a couple cases there really squarely on point to say the circuit court doesn't ruin your request then it's deemed abandoned and you can't raise it you can't raise it  the court because it was abandoned now as to whether that assuming the court wants to address the question now will stand him we pointed out in our place that that what he's really seeking is an injunction against future statutes nobody's claiming that that might make clients the treasurer in the comptroller on their own without statutory authorization just grab money from funds and move it around clearly that they they can't do then they don't do that what happens is  general soundly authorized by statute the transfer of this money from one fund to another so a permanent injunction that he's talking about is an injunction it would prevent the legislature from passing the statute but that that is as simply beyond the scope of what a permanent show that a permanent junction is necessary there was no hearing and probably because the court never ruled on the issue there was no there was never a hearing on the issue and so i bet you know i didn't mean to avoid your question your honor ye court level and it's moot because if it ever comes up again the same proceeding would go forward in theory i mean if the if if the same thing would happen the same type of proceeding to go forward and the cour didn't lose any money right so there's a remedy at law the money was transferred back into the into the accounts and no money no money was lost so there's clearly a remedy at law so there's no need for kind of future prospect do this because i believe there was a really new argument raised in the reply brief because at the trial court level what we were really discussing or arguing about more is whether the money when the money was swapped and it was not in me in a situation in lawyer funds for that period of nine months to a year it wasn't earning interest and then when it's returned to those funds should that interest be returned so we're talking about nine hundred seventy thousand dollars moved into the general revenue then moved by court order to a protest work we said to the statute section four point one in the finance act that said no the interest is our interest rate counts they cited another statute a witness came in and said no this is the statute we believe applied that was the end it was a statutory which of these statutes applies during this period of the suite and that's what i understood the argument to be in the opening brief as well in the reply brief what i understood the argument to what was being made was that the statute that we claim apply section four point one which says interest on these funds goes into the general revenue was unconstitutional under cracker persistently that's what i understood him to be arguing in the reply brief and that was that it's since that was a really raised wasn't fully litigated sort of in the in that in the trial court and it wasn't really raised the opening brief i did want to chance to at least address that argument before i sat down and i believe that that i can have fails because crack of this is thinly was not about separation of powers which is which is what the trial court ruled on in this case saying that the legislature has to keep their hands off of judicial funds because the judiciary a separate branch and can't touch it it was about access to the courts so the question if something violates crockery is are you putting a burden on somebody who wants to get into the court system that's unrelated to their desire to get into a court system that's unrelated to the operation of the courts and so when you when you deal with fees you say well get stuff before oh it's for something i'm really the court system that's a burden on that lady and so we're going to we're going to disallow that but when you deal with interest you're not dealing with any burdens on the court system so to the extent that his reliance and crocker for the proposition that section four point  solely on crocker which really doesn't address that proposition he hasn't satisfied that burden so four point one which dictates where interest goes is a constitutional statute or he hasn't proved it unconstitutional therefore it should apply and therefore correct it's the seven individuals who were elected to the supreme court that are the court they supervise under the constitution the a or a c is merely an administrative arm i don't know if even if it's true if the the seven members of the court to get direction i wouldn't ask i didn't raise it and i'm offended by it because it's an attempt to muddy the waters and suggest to this court this is supreme court doesn't want the money in the supreme court really doesn't want anyone stepping up on their behalf what's interesting though is if the attorney general was willing to have a lawyer for the daylight see in the courtroom why didn't they have a look yes the supreme court if they want to the lawyers to enter i told you don't worry about it move on now as far as the nonsense about the money was really at risk look at the decision of this court in chicago bar first as kronstadt which i cited page ten of my reply brief the theory that the swedes really ok because the money would have been put back at a later date l a p d is collected through air d c and crohn's and this court said that money is not subject to any control of anyone but the only supreme court can't be what it it can't be touched wealthy did here is they took the money belonging to the supreme court and by the way if you look in the appendix consul keep reading your riginal complaint we have men page eleven the court granted judgment in our favor on the count of the complaint asking for the return of the feat it wasn't just the court on its own decided to do it i keep hearing that it's page all levon of the appendix the court also in section d dealt with the issue of sovereign immunity and the other arguments are now making that we should be in the court of claims they didn't appeal of it and now they're standing here with  just as coleman correctly asked well until somebody filed this lawsuit the response was to go back over listen to the tape well actually those phones would've gone bad anyhow because it says under the act that once we take it if we if we decide that they need the money the court needs the money we'll give the money back to them but of course that money is out of the court's control it's now under the control of a branch that isn't supposed to have it and by the way when you read the trial court's decision fees that's an argument we didn't abandon just steal you're correct it's in our brief they read it is saying because we don't think it should be taken from the court but that sort of man and that those fees just like in jordan is in part of the points out the port needs to be protected then judge if nobody picks the court here no one's going to jump up the next time there will be another dude coming in spending lots of money out of their pocket for expenses fighting take a look at the record this isn't a magnetic miss attorney general and two other branches saying it's your money take it back they fought us issue it is and i agree with the former justice rare that the court system needs protection and we all know we read the newspapers they're going to get funds from someplace i suggest are going to get it out of the courts pocket