heart it involves an issue that the illinois supreme court enunciated almost one hundred twenty five years ago in the holding versus ancient order case the illinois supreme court described the issue presented in that case which is whether an insane person or a person adjudicated insane could receive the proceeds of a life insurance policy in the court answered their question in the affirmative and remark there can be no public policy in the punishment of such persons the court went on to hold were an insane beneficiary in a life policy kills the assured under such circumstances as would cause the killing to be murder if the beneficiary were sane such killing does not cause a forfeiture of the policy nor bar his right of recovery for the insurance money the estate of focuses on the illinois slayer statute section two point six of the probate code and they focus on one case there has only been one case that supports its position the dorothy vs call case that case is not binding on this court that case is not binding on any other  and the doherty case was wrongly decided the statute in the dorothy case clearly omitted what would make it applicable in this case unlike the ohio statute that was cited in the ahmad vs ahmad case that we cited in our graves there is no particular reference were specific reference to an acquittal by reason of insanity yes unless we were absolutely convinced that the illinois supreme court would decide the case differently guaranteed represents the state of illinois law on this point and of course darity pointed out that the illinois supreme court in that state farm life insurance case verses sneath indicated that the beneficiary of an insurance policy who has intentionally and justifiably killed the policy holder what not to recover the insurance proceeds even if she has not been convicted of murder so what reason would we the illinois supreme court would follow down now and to well first of all your honor the state farm case involved somebody who did commit murder who was not found insane slayer statute was amended in one thousand nine hundred three to encompass somebody found insane but even the dorothy case admitted that it was not clear from the legislative debates and as the  s supreme court remarked in thompson versus thompson it is dangerous to assume intent from a legislative debate because it creates a risk of judges not being able to prevent the implications they see from mirroring the policy they favor but at the base of your question your honor is the arrest of preemption issue doherty is completely irrelevant if section two point six is preempted under arre reasoning clearly implies that state slayer statutes must be deemed free empted under ressa and if that were to take place i'd want to ask you this do you think that there is i think that the artificial dichotomy that the district court made between criminal liability ments reya and civil issues was not based on anything that the court cited to any precedent for nor is it consistent with any other case that has dealt with this particular issue from around the country every particular case including the hold'em case indicated that somebody who was found insane lacks the intent to commit an act that requires intent in the illinois statute to the extent it is not preempted requires that the killing be intentional and unjustified the legislature could have stated that it included acquittal by reason of insanity the legislator could have even excluded the language intentional and unjustified and the estate of m m would be on stronger grounds if it had but that's not what the statute says the statute says intentional in unjustified and in the hold'em case the illinois supreme court said that  somebody who is found insane lacks fraud mail us poor design the estate of armstrong case from mississippi which surveyed every case around the country on this issue said that willful equals intentional and that somebody who was found insane could not have had the intent to commit the crime and then we have the underlying facts of this case that church believed in her mind that she was acting in self defense when she killed her husband and she was clearly acting under a psychotic delusion when she did so and the circuit court in du page county found that the evidence clearly established that she was insane at the time of the killing by clear and convincing evidence and therefore she could not properly have formed the intent the district court's dichotomy just does not exist intent is intent and while there is a criminal intent that is present here the the cases that have explicitly addressed this issue have all come to the same conclusion that somebody who was found insane lacks the intent to trigger either a state slayer law or the common law slayer rule that that state is and that's really where this case comes up so this court may find that the illinois statute is preempted and probably should find that the illinois statute is preempted but even if it is not preempted there are so many defects in the dorothy case that the court must determine that the doherty case cannot stand as guiding law with respect to interpretation of language of the court if and when presented with the question might conclude that states layers act use are not preempted the only case that addressed i go off of all those district court cases was the administrative committee case and also the issue was raised in life insurance company of north america versus cam decided by the southern district of indiana but in those cases the issue was not material to the outcome the issue may very well be immaterial to the outcome here if the court believes that already is binding on this court my time is almost exhausted so unless avoided what actually happened voided recitation of the actual facts and i will be brief miss miscavige confessed who stipulated a trial that she stabbed her husband while he was sleeping skull with a baseball bat while he attempted to call the police it was admitted and she confessed again that she intended to kill her husband under state law under federal person may not benefit by the wrongful conduct illinois law how can killing be described is intentional if she puts operating during a delusion and was insanity is a legal conclusion that the person cannot appreciate under illinois statute cannot appreciate the criminality of the conduct does not address the civil issue of whether or not the defendant or the individual intended to do what he or she did and in fact under illinois law to four or five of insanity not reason not guilty by reason of insanity do apply there first has to be a finding by the court all the elements of first degree murder which is inten and and justifiably so so if we look at state law doherty is dispositive in the insane killer under illinois state law does not take the in a non probate asset including an employee benefit plan is revoked upon divorce that is a state law that expressly referred to a benefit plan rissa preemption is not unlimited and as i go off court notes there's a presumption against preemption when you have to stay law family law statutes of general application so in this case under the suggestion and the egg law and the federal courts sort of that analyze this issue there is no preemption and it's it's very clear in this case that the a in the complaint that the the plan document says the wife if the person dies before way insofar as the arrest plan is concerned as the says is is that is the spouse dead or alive so the state so any risk administrator would have to say is this person dead or alive they would need to they need to do some interpretation of state law is this person a spouse is this person dead or alive you statute at issue there and the slayer statues but i have to tell you it seems to me the sires hachoo operates in an identical way in so far theorists a plan is concerned as the divorce statute didn't echo ha i'll go back again your honor in any event under federal law whether or not there's preemption it's a fundamental fundamental maxim of federal common law that individual may not benefit by his or her wrongful conduct and if you look at the quiz new scheme i believe it's quest news out of your course that i mean yes if we consider this as a matter of federal common law  would have to label her actions wrongful in order to bar her from any recovery but that presumes that she had some culpability for what she did did she have  this person knew exactly what he was doing he knew that there was no self defense there was no intoxication even though is ruled by a jury the court looked through it said that in fact that the record  criminal proceedings in which he was acquitted the murder charge is not binding upon this court and he has just signed that the i mean do you think that that you might have responded to that but anyway do you think that the best way for you for us to decide this case would be on a general principle of equity that one should not profit from her own wrongdoing i am not particularly light of the fact that there is another individual who may be more in title is would that be the way i mean i don't know if that's the best i'm not sure i'm prepared paired to make that decision but i think that would be consistent with principles that have in place for a very long period of time and i think the best evidence we have here of the wrongful conduct is her own confession according to the harris harrison case still be voluntarily voluntary and knowing and valid and so we have that the next day she says you know what i knew exactly as she did i knew what he was doing i knew what i was doing i wasn't this was a feather in my hand and i thought i was tickling him but really it was a knife and i stabbed him what it is by the criminal court that for legal purposes she was insane but for the purposes of federal law and the illinois statute i could miscavige was indicted sink or even if she was insane she acted wrongfully  all the illinois statute requires that she acted with intent and there's no question that she intended to do what she did it was not an accident she intended to bash his head in to prevent him from calling the police and it was  justified whether or not she had some sort of temporary my problem is not negative the fact that she's admitted that her conduct was wrongful and intentional these decisions aren't made in any scientific testimony or i'm sorry they're not based on any psychological or psychiatric testimony insanity e that you are so this is not based on reading any scientific this being my argument well this being this whole issue that we're confronted with in this well i mean the whole thing i think the whole issue as  has suggested is equities here and if this person truly was for the purposes of you know again we're talking about criminal versus civil and the court courts make that distinction we're not saying that she's not free to well that's what i'm i guess it goes back to is there are some scientific or psychiatric decision between criminal and simple the where they be divided i don't believe it's based on site scientific research let's what point i mean it's one of the course created right that's correct and could do or undo depending on this we're not relying on a specific scientific despite the gruesomeness of the act that counsel presented judge brennan did not come by this decision lightly he found by clear and convincing evidence based on psychiatric testimony that i commit was insane at the time that she killed her husband under the harrison case that counsel referred to the appellate court says that somebody who is found insane quote cannot make an effective choice regarding her behavior the question new skete case the counsel referred to says and i quote murder by an insane person is an exception to the rule against permitting recovery of benefits to a person who kills another into whom such benefits would accrue only upon the death of the victim here that says is the person dead or alive section two point six refers to disposition of property just as the statute in the from washington state that was reference law that is directed at a benefit plan it involves the central issue of planted ministration i e who gets the benefits and it interferes with national uniformity all of those were the factors that the supreme court relied on and  in finding that the washington statute was preempted in this court must make the same finding here as well thank you thank you thank you for even the case was taken under