timely and of course and therefore the sole on the commission jurisdiction over this particular issue there should be no dispute that the commission had subject matter jurisdiction in this is that because the commission allowed eight document requests for review this case to be transferred from the department of human rights where it inadvertently was file d to the commission about six days after it was filed or after receipt is really the issue before the court now there's no question that the document was file within the review period of time it was actually filed before the twenty third of two thousand i the review was not doing it on the under twenty fifth two thousand there also is no the commission reversed the lack of substantial evidence findings by the department we are then allowed to one of two past five to follow at that point time we can continue with the commission but we have to notify them within fourteen days or else the second half of course is that we can then five the ninety days after we received notice of the reversal the lack once the case your complaint was before the commission passion it was you were given an alternative of whether to stay the commission level or to go to  that's right you chose to go the circuit court that's correct circuit court you believe could provide you the relief from your doing so if you prevail reinstate the frequent i hope th transfer of requests from you in the member to be delivered to the commission so in other words the basis of the motion to dismiss which the trial court granted was nothing to do now the most to dismiss was based on several problems one of those grounds was under the strict time deadlines of the statutory provisions they had to file their action appeal from the finding of no substantial evidence within thirty days that's a mandatory requirement that's our position and that was not done because it was the liver wasn't served on the commission it was to the department but there's a more fundamental reason why this case has to be a firm and it goes right to that second issue which i understand he claims is waived but that is a entire statute that was in a fact one january one starting on january one of two thousand because of the bill signed by the governor in august of two thousand and seven and i wish i would have attached it to my br then you have section b which deals with how you respond to the charge the notice has to be provided to the respondent after the charge is filed the respondent then files a response the parties file and then you have section c with deals which which deals with the investigation and that's what happened here we had a fax five a conference we had no witnesses were interviewed by the department investigator there was a report issued by th remanded to the director and we're finding that there is substantial evidence ok now at that point the commission issued the department issues a notice of substantial evidence and you'll notice that it's attached to the appellant sorry and here's what excess it does say that he has those two options but the department did have the power to do that here's what it says at the beginning you have to receive an order from the human rights commission vacating the department finding and entering a final finding a substantial lead to the commission did ok it then goes back and instead of proceeding with a complaint before the commission he waits and files in the circuit court not that can't be done after january one of two thousand and eight because when you look at section it's very clear when you look at all of this language that the intent of this is to give him an option if they don't if they perceive from the commission that they lose the right to file an action in the circuit court otherwise it makes you can appeal to the commission you can go through the administrative review process that's what could have happened there's no question at all that when the director first found that there was no substantial levels he could have filed an action in the circu director's notice the directors notice that it has to be read in the context the directors notice is the director's finding after the investigative process and so forth d d l with the situation where the director makes a finding that there is substantial evidence and at that point it makes sense that you give them the option at that point but what possible purpose could there be for allowing multiple details of this process  it and if i point you to the the actual notices from the earlier ones talk about how the director has made that determination the director has reviewed the the three i'm sorry she fifty three of the residency order from the commission and it says the department's dismissal of their peoples charges make and your people charges reinstated the remanded to the department for entry of a finding  correct ok they've now done this what is it that mr people's was supposed to do you think he was required to do by the two thousand and eight changes i think it's very if you look real to the commission and you're looking for a finding of substantial evidence what you invoke the commission which and keep in mind we're talking about two separate bodies talk about commission or about the department once we go to that stage then  only option as i read this is you know why he started the ninety days from the date of the original one the file circuit court once he doesn't do that he proceeds to the commission his only option is to distribute and you know keep in mind there are some sound reasons why some would choose that you know they give the complainant the right to make that choice then i would question he doesn't need administrative review because he's at that point he's staff attorney did decide that but at that point the commission the staff attorney included those two options you have the right to file the action yet have a complaint filed be i don't mean this is going to come off base in a degree of sarcasm you are providing us with this new insight some of the difficulty with that is the assuming you're correct going different directions the care is nobody understood what the hell was going on and nobody pointed it out until we get to this point when you talk about options one of the option ought to be that we not spin wheels but rather get things resolved on their merits so i'm back to the rough justice because i'm sort of in a quandary about how we're supposed to see well when you're telling us that four years ago it was set in stone that you can't proceed this way but all the players who supposedly know more about this and we do given that we all love administrative reviewing and getting involved with with the the agencies do  things and so forth and you offer i understand but not notice that that but to me for why for me i cannot understand why anyone would continue to appeal something like that to her if if the complaint wants to file an statute i believe it absolutely is a jurisdictional matter when you when you consider these different provisions and you know if the court would like supplemental briefing on that i would be happy to do that you know as i say your tire statu we look at it seems to me is very clear because otherwise it just doesn't make sense to ask for the department making the mistake because you know so actually what you're saying is we should be stopped or there's a fairness issue but we've addressed that in our  before it is your argument this is different this is a better subject matter jurisdiction because we're talking about courts sharing jurisdiction with administrative agency this is not really sharing jurisdiction because there are two different options i mean administrative review process and one process the process of filing in the circuit court is another some point it could have gone to the circuit court pretty much spread it could have gone on the could have done right just wondering because we have this fork in the road so to speak where you can do either if this kind of case might be the exception to the it's not some you know missing some minor little deadline this is a situation where the general assembly is that look here's the way to do it and here's why and the reason i mean otherwise you've got the commission and if we rule that way we've got the commission and the department and the parties wasting basically nine months going through this process for nothing to me it's not if you want to start talking about equity it's not them to review it a lack of substantial evidence or you go in the circuit court the answer to this question is why do you want to go get the have the commission review that let's because you want to take a clean record in whatever form of the road you take and it's better to go into a full lawsuit with a finding by the commission that there is substantial evidence and that's what you do when you file the request for review then to go in with a finding that well i disagree with that paragraph four addresses that issue it says he is the director determines there is substantial evidence and that's what happened in this case when we filed that requests for review the director is the one who said wait a minute there is substantial evidence in this case made a recommendation to the commission that the finding by the department be vacated the commission and said ok we accept your recommendation go back send it back having vacated and then we were under for option four which gives us the right to stay before the commission or file and circuit court with a substantial evidence fin with what i do agree with what the court said everybody up to this point said that is the correct interpretation of the statute including the commission the chief legal counsel their counsel and your strongly that that was a correct we got a