cases that of the department here and mr opposite side show that the cardinal roofs test for reconstruction is to determine the true intent of the legislature and that the traditional rules must  that i would agree with you that in the if there is a statute that is clearly on point and there's no ambiguity in it that you would not need to resort to extremes against her and that's not the situation here we have our two statutes both part the idea that the statute gave them the authority to take take it all why not set it at one hundred percent why not send in a fifty or sixty percent or for that matter as has been suggested by the score why don't you see you can get four reimbursement statute three seven six to allow the state to take it all back as soon as they get a dime over four thousand would discourage battery and would undercut the goal behind the entire system once you take it out of the  be ok you could have this all of it you can have four thousand dollars or you can squander it away on cigarettes as as councils admitted that you could go to the commissary and spend it on what you want is that really the lesson that we want to teach prisoners that you should spend the money as soon as you get it because if you go it on over four thousand or for that matter the state's going to sweep in and take it on and also with the four thousand dollars wild card one thing that i should mention it's important to remember that in this case the state that we did not originally automatically deduct the four thousand dollars wildcard exemption that was of counsel and it may not be something that every prisoner who is fortunate to be able to obtain counsel maybe able to rely so it's not necessarily the policy isn't in place let's give them four thousand dollars and take i think that what it what it does is it creates not only in this incentive to work but also a very cynical attitude towards the promise of labor that after twenty years of saving in the day that you know that you get released you be able to use this money to start your new life  become a productive member of society to use these new skills that you've honed to find out that oh actually i have to give one hundred percent of it back to that person is not number one they're not going to have the funds to start in life they're going to have a huge judgment apparently exception to the statute that doesn't exist or that it would be one way of interpreting what it what it did i think that what we all i wanted to know what i would say is that under the court's circuit courts do with the department is doing is not just trying to attach the assets that mr hawkins has which are the only assets that even under the broadest possible reading of the three could be allowed to be attached but actually attach  to give it away as soon as you close to four thousand or ten thousand or whatever the benchmark might be i don't think that we want to present the financial beings in ship with the amount of money if it's you to actually provide them with an incentive to work and es to pay their costs of incarceration now this is also this is also purpose of the correction employment program it's written into section one of article twelve which governs it and was actually specifically added in one thousand nine hundred nine in the same public act as one of the taxpayers to pay his bill that isn't built for four hundred fifty five thousand dollars to care for mr hopkins or him committing these crimes on the general assembly's address these these competing policy concerns with a knack to both of these statutes mr of the reimbursement statute and it says there at the director or worst directors designees when he or she reasonably knows where believe that a committed person has access which me i'm summarizing which may be used to satisfy quote it appears that the committed person has any assets which ought to be subjected to the claim of the department under the section the court me issuing an order requiring any person to appropriate any of the assets or portion thereof towards thousand dollars at all much less four hundred fifty five thousand dollars a year into prison employment or they could possibly be subjected to reimbursement on the stand she under interpretation i don't think that we even when the initiated surely