follow craig case in deciding mean that the candidates in this case that prevail on appeal should be awarded their costs and the costs because there were so many cases  they make one argument that we should give the cost but they make an alternative argument that if they do get costs they are entitle to the majority of the cost back their reasoning in in a cage in that they are tentative costs is that because i one filing fee or one costs the argument that they're making as that they should get six southern firemen piece back because i filed too many cases in response to the argument they make regarding that  work individual issues in each of the candidates cases some of the some of the individual facts were different in the case the chairman was actually resident in two of the county or guest rooms so the issues were a little bit different for each of the cases and there were several different individual what twelve or decisions issued with regard to those can but because they were consolidated i don't think that that should entitle the we should be penalized because we had to file seven different individual cases i think the issue here is that that's correct so each case there was a different doctor except in one case i think of back in one case there were two candidates challenge from one county board districts and there was the same object or in those two the objections in the first place and from the elect tore but we didn't review their yet as we reviewed the decision of them or you were asking us to review the decision or rather i'm in this in this appeal i'm asking you to review the decision election code it is specifically states that these this thing that these cases are to be handled in accordance with the administrative review law and it's based on the back of the go to the administrative review law that brings in the cost which draws the distinctions done personal injury cases that the chancery cases and there is nothing in section two which deals with all those cases that talk about an award or costs either because i looked lonely to the administrator you off there is nothing ins article two of the of the civil practice that was talks about you know civil cases i'm going to be playing there's no mention of cost in there either you're talking about entries of application here because it deals with the election contest not a petition review which is involved in our construing to terminology used there there are other civil cases and they said well that may refer to article two it specifically does not include article five the so my confusion bring the attention to government deficiency in the election process after that if that's the stain on their counts or of different reasons then it's still up to the attorneys for the objectors to defend the government and i think it's unconscionable in the case where we were merely defending the electoral board's decision the government's decision i was in a point of the special prosecutor i wasn't paid anything the payment is for between me and my clients for providing a government service defending the government and in this particular case in the groups says yes yes and and that decision was not exactly the way the objectors wanted it the problem that we had in this case is specific to the entire case based upon that citation that was made at the first time in front of the appellate court that argument mr file has never once cited anywhere before the electoral board or the trial or objectors pay the cost of their public service of bringing to the attention of the electoral for some deficiencies in the electoral court came to their own solution which deficiencies to exact and we've been providing this cases pacific and that's why we're asking for a ruling in our favor the pete case i think is a real strong precedent that the pace talked about hossa being awarded and they hung their hand on the words oh civil cases did not incorporate article five in this case the ten point ten one that was being brought up on appeal has the wording ma each of the objectors were named reason or not other cover the briefs that all the different cases were consolidated if you've got the entire record each of the guarantees is a part of their own individual final court but there were in case after case costs more to the prevailing party in article two cases and they're also rewarded in article three cases i believe that this mean this really review we're reviewing the decision of the will county