unjustifiable causes the death of another it's our position that that formulation is broad enough to disallow him or her from him directly benefiting from his crime if this court as previously indicated in the related case involving murder conviction of the son the long history of shabaan and in affirming that conviction that there was quote an inference that should be on the son in law bit that statement we understand that mr shabaan has been found guilty of this murder and he's serving time in the penitentiary forty five years but the stand should you say s the language what language are you directing us to that would suggest that because he made benefit that they have precludes his white from taking the prevent the murderer from inheriting well we really say for there were two reasons one allowing her to take would be an indirect benefit to her husband whom she your capacity and cool and the other circumstance are intended to apply to you need batu all circumstances such as this i respectfully submit your honor that this case person who caused the death of the grandmother shouldn't have received any property they were far from the taking in directly from their mother well that's true but they were still the more the person who had intentionally and unjustifiably caused the death here we have a daughter who has now it least in any way shape or form on this record or otherwise has it been suggested that she is a person who intentionally intensely rather cause the death of her mom you're right the factual circumstances are not identical but malarious in the state because there was no connection shown in her record of her having anything to do with the intentionally unjust and often justifiably cost to death must be bred must be read brawling to consider the participation of the pers why are we going sort of against general principles story construction with your interpretation and perhaps these earlier decisions have done that in their interpretation but aren't you really asking us to go beyond st principles to say that because the murder may possibly take some form of a benefit that we should disallow his wife from here when the statute is directed it aid we have to look at every word it says a person who intentionally and unjustifiably causes shall not receive but it doesn't ever suggest that anyone else or other persons shall not take it's specifically directed at one individual a person causing the death so you're asking us i mean i see where the  directed at prohibiting the actual later from taking i don't think  person where is this dish you let's focus is a person who intentionally so i do think there is a limit to this in directness and that is it still has to be directed to the person who committed murder we know they cannot take  the reasonable reading of the stairs tory language is brought up as the fifth district has read it and i think it's just as posner has construed it applying illinois law to diversity that he's taken anything under any circumstance there isn't is not a position should be that there should have been the language should have been limited as the trial court did to a strict reading of the statute in the trial court should consider both indirect benefit and equitable circumstances where is the evidence of indirect benefit where is there any evidence that he's going to indirectly benefit he's in jail he's doing forty five years but there are other cases and it's not in this record where for example couldn't you seek an injunction think it's frankly i'm just saying like the remedy outside the statute the we're looking at the statute and therefore we have to base our decisions under the timeframe that we're dealing with now since he's already convicted his who should hear it well if equitable principles apply here under the unique factual circumstances that are in this record clearly here you would have been not focusing as with indirect benefits on the murderer but on the person who seeks to adhere it clearly she has unclean hands in the record establishes in both the ship opinion that she lied to the police when she told them she was not in the apartment on the day of the murder she lied to read the statement that she gave to the assistant state's attorney she testified falsely before a grand jury so you're really asking us to now include within the statue of a person with unclean hands regardless of whether they intentionally are justifiably c and now you're kind of switching the focus over to her is opposed to isn't it should find that you want to prevent from taking and so this indirect taking now research suggesting which she shouldn't take either best policy here i mean the public policy is spoken in language that a person to one intentionally and unjustifiably causes the death shall not receive any property i don't think that this language should jess anything more than th her conviction and the conviction of her husband do not suggest that she participated or intentionally unjustifiably cl shouldn't be just here there's nothing in the record indicating that she directly participated other than the evidence that she was in the apartment on the day of the murder  answered at least two incoming phone calls in approximately one thirty and three o'clock on the day of the murder and then engaged in a pattern of lying to the various authorities about her having been there and becomes what about this cooperation mandate in the illinois slayer statute yet which is not part of the uniform probate act formulation his not part of most other states slater's statues in require force the holder of any property subject to the provisions of this section and clearly on the issue of cooperation or not cooperating though you think that in writing the statute if they thought they should also that that individual should also have been disinherited that they would have included language right there they contemplated this particular scenario or that there might be an instance where someone might not cooperate and have information but they don't go any further to say that they also should be disinherited but if you read it that way in the language is nugatory if it has no consequence if it's if it's not intended to the ever finding case where the violation of the cooperation mandate is more clearly established here she's been convicted of not cooperating perjury obstruction of justice with your choir to cooperate the holder of any property yes that would that mean the bank does that mean a trustee yes is she a banker trustee in this case no but she's the holder of the condominium and all the other property of the sea she falls within it so we think all three of those factors should have been considered by the trial court and the trial co should here breach the determination not based strictly on the language of the clause intentionally and unjustifiably the cause of death we think the statute can be fairly read to be broader we think that the courts have said there is a strong public policy that murderers should be denied the fruits of their coming larry this case and that frankly to stand by to be in the room while your husband murders your mom so that you may take is exactly within the school book counsel you know i think that if  there were information or suggestions like that in the record we might be discussing this quite differently but you kind of added something here and now it's not a record we know she's in the apartment well releasing said copy but then he references the very last paragraph if the holder of any property subject to the provisions of the section knows or has reasons to know that a potential beneficiary cause the death of a person within the there's nothing written as your point not just nothing written in this section that that applies and the penalty for violating it but second of all and up facts of this case there is nothing that says that misjudgment was a failure of any property twenty three opinions my client obviously was not a party to the murder conviction of her husband and head no control over the facts and even to state that she was in the apartment on the day of the murder the apartment on the sixteenth the curtains of it i mean the fifteenth according to the coroner the murder took place on either the sixteenth or something so i don't place i don't see anything in this you know if you look at the world twenty three facts on the opinion anything the place or anywhere through has been convicted of obstructing justice all directly related to the death of her own mother right when the husband has been found guilty of that murder and she's still married to him and the one of the arguments you know shortly after the murder i think that's enough for the trial court to decide there was in direct if i don't want facts but frankly the record shows still left work on the afternoon of friday june twenty fifth from one of her coworkers started calling her that evening at approximately eight o'clock am there was no further communication so that coworker was supposed to have dinner with her the following night i was never able to get a hold of her the