point out that the  timely made then in fact the substitution should be granted and then it went on to define it tightly made indicate that it was filed before trial or hearing and before any ruling on any substantive issue or subs substantial issue cases later indicated that bad substantial issue means with regard to the  beverage case then came along and the wording that couldn't be any clearer as far as i'm concerned where it says solely testing the waters was not to be considered then i believe that i did it's training that way even in the other districts and the s supreme court just changed their order and said back to this particular judge but at least the first district was at that point and that was in two thousand they didn't discuss the testing of the waters at that point they made it very specific to the just the wording of th judge and dealing with what he called taking of the hand but using that interchangeably for testing of the waters that he said it's a slippery slope to some subjective mentalis to any meaningful kind of assessment and easily manipulated he also stated that the appellate court standard view being you know in these cases that appellate court really can't see the inflection or facial expression or body language that the trial court could see that might indicate some sort of tipping the hand so the appellate court asked rely on the trial he went on to state that he just felt that it backwards because of that particular standard being applied i would rely on there were other cases that  brief about the earliest practical moment really that that part is just taken out of context because when you look at rose alley when they dealt with timeliness they always dealt in that case  which is where they started that kind of discussion they always dealt with finally this dealing with whether or not it was filed before a substantive ruling and then they cite a number of cases substantive ruling had been made nothing to do with what was filed or any calendar related to that thank you and may please counsel i know we're limited on time folks try to be as brief as possible and our briefs fairly well take care of the issues the a pol thousand one hundred district case and in that case the this court specifically references the testing of the waters standard to this or talks about  judge shopping and had a chance to form an opinion as to the judge's predispositions in my research i have not been able to find a single case cullen filing their motion for substitution of the case of been pending for over a year the trout court had been assigned to this case for over nine months the trout were held an extensive hearing  with counsel making arguments the trout boards asking questions and responding to those arguments and ultimately no ruling issued from that hearing because it came to light that's one of the parties had filed a ancillary case that affected one issue that is involved in the case here that case was subsequently assigned to the same trough court and that case was decided on the merits by that route or so here you have a trial court who has already issued a ruling related to the case albeit in a separate case and then here nine months after the judge is assigned all of a sudden the apologists have reason to feel that they need to get rid of the problem for your honor the only reasonable explanation for that is that at some point they determine that generally got you was not favorably disposed to some claim they were making in nine months after the judge was a sign they filed it they filed a motion by my recollection serves me correctly the morning of the hearing on some motions that were scheduled in that case which obviously don't know that the problem court would ever be in a position to well be in a better position to make a finding that the purpose of the motion was for the leg i would imagine you're going to be hard pressed to find a situation where a party is willing to freely admit that their reason for filing a motion is soley to delay and i'm fairly certain that no attorney would never admit to motion that same party then moves to a substitute that is there in french play you can find a a motivation that it was done with the way it doesn't seem like if it doesn't pop out here that there is two thousand and seven hearing at as it was that the hearing was wrapping up there was the extensive discussion about the substitution of judge in the related case then at the very end of the transcript last page of the transcript page forty one line clear that if the court does not accept the testing of the water standard that there is enough evidence that really the only other purpose for this motion  campbell i found this case this morning with the sites is two thousand and thirteen illinois poll of one two zero nine two five dash you in that case this court cites they were really the curtis case the state of gay pace and also the heart of pillow case which is the case that we relied on in our that occurred in that case including what the trial judge based its reason for denying the motion for substitution which was a motion to strike a portion of it based on rescue to cause and effect isn't going to be a substantive really i don't know what it was and then the wording in that actually the paragraph where the holding is actually says it's based on the subsidy ruling now there was some later discussion about maybe the judge knew about it that that the dismissal kind of had something to do with that also but clearly that case was the appellate court was a farming what the trial which was based on rest not allowing the substitution there the meeting everybody gets to the bank one of the judges motion for substitution at the end of that hearing she was talking this was the hearing that is the motion hearing that they went through several items but no one was made it was showing continuous she admits on several occasions that i didn't make any rulings i didn't do this i didn't do that even at the end of that hearing she felt people still have the right