use one point zero five a little bit further in saying that person doesn't include a corporation unless the context language or legislative history indicate otherwise this is important because if the police argue they say well well just goes through applying statutes that youth legislative language and ultimately deciding that there's no reason a corporation can't be considered a person under the only hate crimes act think there's a pretty clear analogy here they're it generated violence for the other statute when there's nothing about the language of that statute that would make that inconsistent with what the legislature wrote mckillop cites several state court cases as i states that a corporation can be considered a person for purposes of the dram shop at up and another thing i like is that it cites board of education first as a c m s to kind of give the other side of it that saying in that case you didn't include a corporation because the steps you said natural person which shows how easily the legislature could have indicated that they did not want the statute to apply to corporations if in fact that's what you want remedies on behalf of white this it has a different set of limitations i think the report reasons why some aggrieved parties may prefer the gender violence act or may find itself in a situation where that's perhaps their only recourse but i don't disagree that there are other means of getting to a corporation through as you say i consent hire because of supervision but those are negligence cause of action i think though taking that logic knowing that that does  in interpretation here today that corporations can be considered a person under the gender bias that would not be some wild extension of a wall we already know that a corporation may be held liable for the same type of act under common law to interpret a statute in a way that we feel is entirely consistent with the legislature's wording isn't some expansion it's just beyond what we would have ever intended  any person can institute a civil action it was intended to combat meetings being held in privacy for the benefit of the public the court went through the similar type of analysis person is not actually defined in that statute so they look to just that you don't statutes mention that yes it can be found to include corporations but of course not mandatory so let's look at the legislative purchase about purpose and where the general assembly said that they want all it is a little unique i again i'm maybe reading between the lines or giving my own personal interpretation but i believe the judge saw this as one where i'm going to rule against you because i think he very limited authority that is not from illinois at all cords is against me to kind of put the onus on you go out there and appeal this because i think we need some laws this is there isn't anything really we can rely on it is a little bit unusual procedurally but that's court can be held by or the corporation to be a liable for the acts of the employee and that's in most of these that is on procedural grounds as we are going to see that in the favor our case in point tried to there's the flow case which makes some there are some of them important homes in there that we think support our side one of which is that the according to before the decision the statute is on statutes does create a that issue had been waived by not being in primary original brief and declined to address that there were disobeyed case which is a more recent one that's cited by the defense again the court didn't get to the issue of right  cases otherwise considered the preamble to the general violence acted we think that was an oversight because the preamble talks about the purpose of the legislature to combat general a violence as a it's not one hundred percent on all fours but i think it's again it's analogous authority to say that if we're going to be looking to the federal court persuasive authority let's look what they've done in similar types of cases because the cases are sli context but again i would say if there is a dish in a language in there it can be ignored surpluses but there is still plenty of language in there supporting the case against mr quinn allison and make the case for the encouraging  i don't recall i don't want to give you answer off the cuff i say i think it may have had to do with the fact that we were dealing with a corporation but that this question to come before this panel it would be nice to have some resolution as it as t v eight finds perpetrating which means he there personally committing generally to violence or personally encouraging assist in the act or after a little violence corporations do not do anything personally and taking these supposed to look at all of her words i just don't know how we get past how they are treating us is it sex discrimination and  solution i don't think so because of the statute on statutes in the way in a plot interpreted in the case law at a council i know he made that argument a person can't do anything personally i would say certainly corporations do  says that cannot be the interpretation here again easy to do wasn't done i think it goes to the legislature's intention and that's based on the kalo and all of the cases that underlie that that were cited that are almost supreme court cases by the defense that the presumption is the corporation is inhuman by what were person not the other way around he talked about the facts in case regarding the open meetings that and this is rely on the brief to i think they're looking essentially cherry picking some of the earlier language in that with and trying to divert attention away from the final the only yes the court in fact and did say the statute on statute doesn't automatically apply the word person corporation and it went on to go through the same rationale that i'm going through here today that because it doesn't automatically apply let's look and see what the language is in the statute with look and see if there's anything contrary that the legislature as intended i'm not familiar with anything that's analogous enough that i would put it before the court and say look you know this oklahoma statues the same thing i think there are other efforts to combat the same type of societal problems i know where one there may be that is exactly on this is not a sexual discrimination case it's a sexual violence gets the important thing here is the general simply define sexual was as a form of sex discrimination and that goes to the meaning