certificate in fact the constitutional requirement that he warned the united states if we start allowing your individual united states three or more rifle shooting to test his standing in his capacity the home office the office holder well obviously you never get any work done you imagine if i were in illinois look you mention if we had any office holder was constantly subject to these suits how would they possibly be able to proceed and move forward in their heads set up a procedure that allows basically for private planes and the case like this is a procedure by which individuals who will be direct and substantial interest in the outcome may bring suit those suits have included in the past such things as individuals who will suffer and actually have to pay a higher tax because of the acts of war does not properly instituted or convene or in this case or in this case with mr need and it basically is limited to nichols if she had objected in a timely manner and if she had come to court saying i should be in that office but for the acts of mr nikkei the person was alive plain has to have a claim to the office that is difficult of the proper person probably in this instance who may be considered a rival claimant if they are brought suit would be the person who previously held the office because under illinois law you remain in the office of the office  heteros me to think through your question make sure i answer a proper simply put this thing of being removed from office in itself is still present on my client number one number two again the statute speaks of fines and if it is a criminal your argument yes it is and we spelled out the case that just tell me that i was back i'm just drawing a blank in the name like a sure are respectfully it isn't a written motion it comes from the supreme court and basically it deals with what the language of the statute that's really causing the most i'm to dismiss that's the relief you're saying you're not yeah that's correct i don't know find out what their position is like yes go ahead individuals to be fine of course finally and routinely looking at the prior record of individuals in determining what type of sanction is not science judy what kind of punishment to be imposed yes rosemary i those against big thirdly we also have a public stigma associated with this as much as people made to look at this not consider this we look at our former governor i don't think i want to be known as the one individual that's better remove  the obscene governor in the state of illinois frankly i think it's something which damages his probability damages of his public standing and we have the same thing happening here with mr meek he says a person who has been publicly removed marcus notwithstanding the vs department professional regulation and basically what we're looking at is the defacto officer background which is both of them which in illinois if a person is a holy office under color of title the acts if they perform are in fact ballot when we look at this under  self says five twenty five thousand dollars the length of the statute itself says a person i judged guilty those are why would you go that's words and language from the c where in the civil court procedures do we have to say that a person may have twenty five thousand dollars taken out of their pocket because of the private interest of another party purely in seven thirty i hate slash  and number two it isn't back to criminal statute and being found guilty of a crime carries with it so possible a lateral consequences including consideration and other cases and other believe that his resignation from the adults county board in july of two thousand and nine renders valid is april two thousand i separate and of the oath of office of school board member true had he taken the oath of office for school well the thing if it is right now it's moot because he ran for reelection again well there were still two years left on his previous term he was elected and he accept the office of school board member while he was n because that it was very clearly in violation of the law because he resigned from the county board subsequent to however as springfield points out attorney's fees are not good a bill in a civil action i was a statue creating the cause of action specifically provides that attorney's fees may be recovered by the pay when part and then it goes on to say the language of but nonetheless they refer to add to it as a civil action and develop has provided absolutely no authority for his position that this is a criminal statute section two movies that would apply in this case you i apologize my senior counsel did file pouch i believe there may have been some issues the parties are in disparate locations and it's been very difficult to bring everybody together to review things to get things signed  floodgates of litigation and prevent france much public officials at the whim of private citizens the last a growing perhaps she just wanted something that she definitely had a personal interest in but she demonstrated a personal interest him over the and bill daniels have personal interests of bath and beyond those of an ordinary citizen attacks here maintain offices on the school board and as such have distinct personal interest in seeing the squidward actions are proper and above suspicion their actions and decisions on behalf of the school district were concrete late and distinctly impinged by the shadow of an illegally seated court member even if the defendant had a colorable claim to the office which precluded any challenge to his vote and i think there is going to be an explanation there's a question here but just to clear up my own mind what is this language towards the end of that section nothing in this sack shall be construed  school board office who would have not violated the after all every letter's challenge his actions prior to his accepting office the case would have been dismissed as moot well over the illinois supreme court has distinguished and election challenge from not object to the lack of reply at the trial court level case five clearly states that failure to apply is not a matter that can be raced for the first time on appeal as such the court should not consider this claim and even if defendant's failure to object did reply to the conclusory nature of the allegations and the answer they filed a motion for summary judgment i want most cases in this particular case both sides presented copious evidence to defend itself geishas through testimony in two thousand and one at all times and this emitted by all parties they said on the school board at the same time knowing that mr meek camp was in fact on the county board they could in fact rob a quorum soon and any point in about that is correct within six months of the filing of the earth within six months of the election i'll parties were in the city that was they've complained that they didn't know this they didn't know what to do they put of taken action a long time prior holding office under color of the ball with mr he can clearly does that certainly is those actions are not subject to collateral challenge the was established and we've side with regards to ms nichols i also know