trial there is a mandatory nondiscretionary right to dismiss your case the only exception of the legislature enacted was that if there was a pending dispositive motion before the motion to dismiss is filed there was no such motion in this as if we're talking about the supreme court rule ninety three the courts have said you can't do racial because you'd be making a mockery of the mandatory arbitration and so the difference between our case and those cases which i don't i didn't read you  really saying it would be valid period it would be violating supreme court really succeed which says the rules must be must be consistent with supreme court rules say so supreme court is going to approve these rules even if they by way of background is i'm sure the court is aware in september of two thousand and fourteen the only supreme court approved a circuit court of cook can this petition to launch a pilot program for commercial mandatory arbitration c find and i looked everywhere the power plants which are years in within the first two months will twenty five is clearly in place because the circuit court approved it in november fourteenth two years way back after two years the know that that is exactly what happened the supreme court review are you aware of anything anywhere anything so this is a presumption that this court is going to have to make i think it's a presumption it's easy to make for several reasons the supreme court is just court every year this is been going on for twenty years again there was a two year period before the supreme court if we had the pilot program and i think there's anything we conclude can conclude either be and the supreme court was aware of what it was a design programs in such a way that they'll work in a particular circuit so for example if it's a small circuit in on a lot of arbitrators available then they're going to hear the classic cases or they're going to approve and yelling at the class of cases that go to arbitration careful and very active in approving these things there is an issue in the air when these committees do their work and you reports every year but there isn't a lot of detail in these reports at least that i could find as providing some kind of legislative history for the court to follow i was not even able to find a copy of the petition that was submitted seeking approval of the pilot program i went all over the city of chicago in person trying to find something we don't have anything so this is a less than ideal circumstance but again i think yes the point to find otherwise would gas be to ask this court to assume that the supreme court did this without any caution and i just don't think it's appropriate for this court to try to push them out again the supreme court certainly has the authority to vary from its own rules again eighty six c and his face is simply a limitation on the circuit courts to rule eighty six he says a circle cool right can adapt rules for the kind of divide the tracer proceedings which are consistent with these rules but i need states this is not service and limitation on the supreme court counsel what do you that's what the case law says and i've never heard anybody say that that was those cases are wrong but he's saying that this is not supreme court minus three it might be ok d v d but it didn't elevated to the level that well the priority setting an argument is then any case it basically invalidates the entire arbitration program because it anytime someone is unhappy with the result they can simply attack the validity of the arbitration program you no longer have an arbitration not what i understand it to today because that's kind of how i read the brief to be honest but what i'm understanding you say that it's not just overall values they deviate from the supreme court rules he's saying ok even if it's ok to be here it can rise to the level of the supreme court rules such that it can trump the stench a tradition program where they had an active local rules they had not received final approval from in the supreme court and then there was an issue with something that contradicted what the statute i think then we would have a different outcome again i think the key in this case is the two thousand sixteen approval of the program and i think there is no reason to recognize the difference between rule twenty five and a supreme court rule because again it was specifically approved by the supreme court supreme court is allowed to deviate from its own rules supreme court has soldiers stationed over matters of procedure in ministration of the courts and i think at that point regardless of what the statute says this is the supreme court's prerogative to enact every trace in programs to the tracing programs and i certainly think that once the supreme court has approved it then it's a matter of the supreme court's administrative and procedural thirty under the constitution and that's the end of the question then to the extent it conflicts with bed rights statutes on an issue of procedure then the supreme court's action has to prevail the supreme court has it a lot of concern with the overcrowding of the courts i betray she is there to lighten the it's on the court it's an important function of the supreme court if they before this court would choose to disregard this two thousand and sixteen approval and the program i think that would create a lot of difficulty i merely because at that point i don't think there would be a commercial mandatory up or tracing program in place anymore because every commercial mandatory every trace in has of one person has one i have a traitor i don't remember specific robot related since the ninety three that the supreme court two thousand and sixteen order is the equivalent of the supreme court ruled and it trumps the right to voluntary nancy under the other cases i don't really have much more to say i think that you've as a sixteen order answers  where there's nothing on the face of the earth of the supreme court provided saying they need to do x y and z there's nothing on the face you're saying you must fail these things or you need to create the specific present because they didn't delineate exactly modified their local rules there's no question about that the issue is that she's trying to bootstrap supreme court with early on to rule the spruikers never heard so much as referenced the contents of so th adopted local rule eighteen versus well it doesn't rule twenty five there's no need to presume there's no need to guess there's no need to assume anything because everything is there there's a statute that allows for something right so how can we say she erred if she tracked the statute with it i mean the legislature doesn't determine you know whether or not the traditional question of whether something is permissible or not it's really rules the days of for example i can after so but is with respect to other you know which is really one of the main concerns and that's what all my stress is is that you know listen and also you know this is one reason why we can't just let so we have the language of the statute these are playing out in communities that have vary said no way of knowing but i think she might have been amenable to that right i mean if someone said judge as we read this he can't work at mcdonald's next to someone who isn't making you can't say hello to a gay member in the hallway of a school  his biology lab partner is a gang member he's in violation and the judge there's at least a decent chance a judge would say oh well that's not why i did let me clarify the reason why that didn't happen this is why it didn't happen but you know can seventeen year old he's in special education program you know what some people might do in his situation might be different than what can tim i do think he n t isn't challenging exactly how this case proceeded legally yet it wasn't the one morning again i miss it state's attorney actually because on behalf of people there is nothing wrong with the probation order in this case that prohibits a sixteen year old self admitted everybody killer gang member from having contact with gangs guns and drugs are and you're talking in terms of a hypothetical and when we're talking in terms of a hypothetical we can't use the same as applied analysis that the miner has raised in this present case so let me explain why where people are in this problem because of my admission of probation do you believe that this order puts the minor an adequate notice of what he will be in violation for absolutely absolutely and the only way that the juvenile court the order to make the special exceptions is if this information is this brought to the attention of the juvenile court so it is minor the juvenile court knew that he lived in a gang infested area so that's why she said don't be around games don't have contact you know what if you find yourself i'm wondering if you go to school if you find yourself in a situation where you're doing exactly way you do which is go to school that would be in contact with the gang member so your probation officer or come to me and will give you a waive the extreme a difficult to comply with this order i know i am going to order is very clear for this minor and he understands the exact kind of contact and the individuals that he is not supposed to be having basketball team members who are gang members that doesn't count did she give him the any play in matters of exactly what were the violation she was very clear and that he was not to have contact with gang members and i have to emphasize and you  fairly developed record and without really knowing what those minor circumstances are or the situations in which you bring need to have some kind of legitimate contact with gang members there's no way for us to carefully craft since in order to help this miner reach the goals procedure in this case and was now asking this court to straighten the conditions of his probation based on these imaginary circumstances that it is true might make the conditions of his probation unconstitutional but this is not mean that's a way to modify or i don't believe that actually solves the problem because with that what that wonder does is it makes it a violation of this minus probate that may just be patient to engage in some kind of criminal conduct that's actually already he's already is the move it established on constitutionality and here he had an obligation to raise these issues and it and including this constitutional challenge to raise it first in the trial court and to bring it to trial puts attention and say this is unconstitutional questions of this minor but the only individual who has the knowledge and who knows how this restriction might impact his own specific circumstance if the minor itself so i want to leave you with today is that this miner has the ability to return to juvenile court to establish any facts that make the same restrictions unconstitutional as applied to him but until he does so this practice fails to support his appetite constitutional challenges because we cannot expect the juvenile courts to cause exceptions to the minors conditions of probation and this minor fails to inform the juvenile court of facts pointing such an exception so for the came president said you know yes it's not technically banishment but the reality is this kid is going to live in a world where he has contact with gang members on a consistent basis there's no way around that to pretend otherwise it is simply a fictional well but i have as everyone knows you know this court should decide the case on nine constitutional grounds if it can there is a requirement that all probationary conditions and restrictions must be reasonable in this case is not reasonable is only because they're