fifteenth twenty fourteen and who admitted that the state was a non heard of the case in pleadings filed in the circuit board on july fifteenth twenty fourteen that's the common law record is right and i don't think there's any obligation under the law that i have to do that i think it's i think sure as far as i'm concerned a suck ration of powers between the executive branch and the judiciary what happened here was that the attorney general's office was ordered by the circuit court of will county to turn over protect the border and then moved for the court to reconsider its work we believe that the courts never should have considered the motion to dismiss because the attorney general will i will say that twenty fifteen that decade's settled for eight hundred thousand dollars so it was also reported that the county clerk i think received thirty six thousand dollars of that was brought  in which case they begin with what to read i know that intervention is typically a term or where somebody is asking you laddie and when you read the statute it sounds as though intervention in this case is this is the attorney general stepping in and saying i want to take over this litigation and i want to be the one running from now on it's not saying i'm not a party is saying i just don't want to have a role in this his actions file because of the recovery of the behalf of the state the attorney general who's the attorney for the state and in most actions in almost every action  n decide to once of this kind of action is filed to officially intervene and take over the action of with the intervention is not to be party it's to take over the litigation they can decide  they don't want to take over the innovation and just let it go on or there's a third possibility under the statute is they just come in and move to dismiss the action they're not trying to take it over are moving to dismiss it and that's one of the options they have it they don't have to say i want to be a party and i want to just list misapply some some other intervene or they just say look  think they're if the court reads the statute is three options it really renders four c three meaningless because it says it may never the less permit the states intervene at a later time or on a that's when i the state decides you know what i think now we want to take over the action that's not a decision that mean that that's when you do that the seven forty c three ok is that they're not made fraudulent filings in the county the county recorder of dean's offices and he looked alleges that they did so to defraud the state of money so that makes clear is clear from those statements that supported himself suffered no injury on any harm that was suffered was suffered by the state and so that's what ill that illustrates the logic behind giving the state ultimate control over these actions in the ends january twenty four te gets a hearing before the circuit court on that motion so even if the attorney general initially declines to intervene in the case which is what she did hear from the illinois supreme court in shabby as your honor recognize  specifically intervene in the shady decision and various other decisions made clear that again this action is on behalf of the state the state has alternate authority over the action and you know has broad prosecut discretion in how the action moves forward or doesn't move forward as the case may be question once the state has moved to dismiss the only relevant question is whether he has and can produce growing evidence of fraud or bad faith and because that evidence just doesn't exist the circuit court correctly going into th seen to dismiss the granting of the motions for reconsideration in for protective order as an initial matter these were the attorney general's motions so the attorney general filed these motions and now mr supported us so it's hard to see how he could claim that there is reversible error in the course decision that these motions were moot plus the court acted well within its discretion in concluding that these motions were moot and issues moot as this court on  those when the rights of the parties are no longer in controversy and in this case the circuit court had already granted the state solution to dismiss so there was no need to assess whether or not to grant a protective order because the case was cl to have a conflict of interest when she's either an actual party to the action or if she has interest as a private citizen so in this case the allegedly disqualifying event was a dinner that the attorney general attended eleven this dinner was public knowledge mr support i believe attached to a press clipping of this dinner she one of his final so there was no secret it was public knowledge and the attorney general was being honored because she had crafted legislation to prevent mortgage fraud and predatory lending support to try to disqualify be attorney general on that on the ground that the potential defendant in his view on had hosted that dinner but you know  to either be an actual party to go with the commission or interested in her private capacity for there to be a conflict and that was not the case here plus mr supporter knew about this alleged conflict in twenty zero evan and he didn't this motion until march twenty fifteen in the courts require parties to raise disqualification motions with reasonable promise and plainly he failed to do so meaning he waived to any right to challenge the attorney general's continued so my understanding of the false claims act and how it works is that a private party what's supposed to happen is that a private party for example is your support that we're seeing and identify an issue that maybe the county recorder of deeds offices was not aware of and so he would bring an action on their behalf at that point you know and that's where the attorney general's involvement comes in because the attorney general is the chief legal officer for this state and so to the extent that there is an issue involving the state i if i took it over or if we agreed to allow him to prosecute on the state's  argument is that what we disagree on is that there is no necessary import from the decision not to prosecute the case that's not the same as saying we think the case has merit and that it should move forward it's just that we have chosen what does it mean when you into the i think that you're on earth sort of got i think your honor's interpretation of that was correct which is that if we decide that the case should move forward and we decide that we would like to prese the state had entered into with various other state and federal officials who are looking into these issues so yes i think your honor has that the factual record for it correctly was there another certainly his request for our investigative file that definitely you know was a part of it but i think the state also concluded that it the factual allegations really were without merit and that he didn't dismissed yeah the courts have said that you know they will not second guess the space decision essentially the burden is on the relatives or to produce some evidence of fraud or glaring gloria but it's rather a fraud or bad faith and so long as he come in under the statute they have a right to pony in and move to extend this before they decide whether or not they're going to intervene in the case it's a poly and they move to extend it and it was grant representing them and seeing in their place as a whistleblower i know they are represented by the attorney general and i think i have an ethical obligation not to contact them because they're represented by counsel and that's what i've been struggling i've been more living here so let them know what the attorney general's done here but i feel my hands are tied to their stand without the permission of their attorney