impression whether an employer violates section thirty five dollars a of the income withholding for support act if it withholds less than the maximum amount of income permitted under the federal consumer credit protection act for child support the circuit court answered this question in the affirmative delta seeks reversal of the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on this issue and delta disagrees with the circuit court's decision for three reasons st the court am poses a penalty upon employers who after their served with an income withholding order knowingly fail to withhold income from an employee's wages or pay amounts that they withhold to the state within seven business days that the penalty provision in the act was never intended to apply to a fact pattern such as the facts in this case where the employer timely withheld and paid withheld income to the states but did not withhold the maximum amount of disposable income permitted under federal law but with a lien order that delta receives directed it to withhold up to sixty five percent of its employees disposable income if he did not make enough money to cover the designated dollar amount of support sept th in the withholding order the employee did not make enough money to withhold the full dollar amount of support because he was a part time employee so delta consistently withheld and timely paid to the state fifty five percent so based on the bid the withholding limits are determined on based on whether the him the employee is supporting another family and whether that the way up there but i'm talking about the software package if you will were they in a position the withhold sixty five percent judge justice i think that they would have been able to if they knew that if they understood that sixty five percent was the correct amount to withhold they could have their with at the time when they received the order their soft er was that was programmed with hold up to sixty percent but as evidenced by their behavior after they received burns's non receipt notice they immediately adjusted the software to increase the withholding limits so it was certainly within the realm of capability for them to increase those limits but they believed that they were acting in compliance with the order did that answer your question yes thank you yes and so after as  just indicated after on delta received a letter from the plaintiff approximately a year after i had been withholding fifty percent of the employee's disposable income they received a letter from the plaintiff stating that it's they should be garnishing at sixty five percent rather than fifty percent in response delta looked into the plaintiff's claims and increased its withholding to sixty percent by november th of two thousand and fifteen and sixty five percent by december eighteen of tw and the plaintiff later file a complaint alleging that it knowingly failed delta knowing they failed to comply with section thirty five day by withholding fifty rather than sixty five percent and the circuit court agreed however the plain language of thirty five dollars a indicates that it's intended to address the failure of an employer to withhold income altogether or to pay with withheld income to the state and it's also clear from the legislative history of the act intended to prevent missed payments during the legislative debate over the two thousand and twelve amendments to the act there is a discussion between two of the representatives about the a penalty applying to missed payments and every case that i have found just asking interpreting the act in illinois involves fact patterns where there is missed payments due to no withholding by the employer or no remittance of of payments that they withheld to the state  what's the what's the responsibility of the employer if the i've got all does it indicate that this person doesn't have another family it's not clear from the order what their responsibility is in that scenario on you know when when delta was put on notice of the under withholding by the plaintiffs they say they had to go back and look into their own records talk to the payroll specialist they called the state h find out what the proper withholding amount was so they having received that information corrected their withholding but it is you know it is unclear from the face of the order whether they're supporting another family and then  that there was a series of income withholding orders that were issued for this particular employee just prior to the withholding order in question and there's inconsistency in those orders as to whether or not the employee was in a rears or not so there were changes in the orders that were entered in this case and but another thing that is important here is thirty five a is a penal statute and because it's a penal statute in needs to be strictly construed in favor of delta and should not be extended beyond its terms and any ambiguity in the action be resolved in favor of delta and that that principle of construction is stepped forth in the case that smeagol which is the rd district case that was decided in twenty teen and i believe that the circuit courts construction of thirty five dollars day went beyond its terms by imposing a duty on delta to withhold the maximum amount of disposable income allowed under the act to the consumer credit protection act or face penalties and the language in the statute of thirty five dollars indicates that the penalties were intended to apply to employers who knowingly fail to make timely payments and it was justified on the basis that it would only apply to an employer who knowingly fails to turn over withheld payments in a timely fashion not to an employer who is acting in substantial compliance by withholding fifty percent of disposable income don't disposition that all along they believe they were in full compliance last on the ambiguity in the order correct that's correct order didn't say one way or the other yes he is supporting another family or no he is not correct is there any case law that says which in the absence of any indication which way the presumption goes i believe the presumption would go in favor of delta under th but because the statute is penal in nature and the interpretation of the order not eric what i meant was if you order is silent as to whether there is or is not a a and other family do you presume there is another family or do you presume there is not a no but now i have not located a case that described directly addresses that issue but but my my rationale in that would be that you would presume you would you would select the lower percentage withholding because the employer can be penalized for over withholding income if it's in excess of the c c p a limit so i would i would go with the lower presumption the only case that i found that talked about differences in the withholding percentages was a case that doesn't express a deal with the issue in the act but it was involved an employer who the court mentioned that they were withholding fifty percent rather than fifty the maximum of fifty five percent that was allowed under the c c p and that was a case called schoenberg versus osland and it's a rd district case that was cited in my my brief and the court just mentioned that the employer garnishing fifty percent rather than fifty five percent of the employee's income which was below the fifty five percent ceiling the employee was challenging the employer the amount of the employer's withholding of  to be triggered and knowing the term knowing is not defined in the act but there have been several cases that have come out since that have addressed whether particular violations are knowing and what's clear from the case law is the penalties are not intended to cover innocent or even negligent violations rather it's the penalties are intended to apply to employers who disregard a withholding order and in this case there is no indication that guilt was disregarding the withholding order they they timely with how and they paid all amounts over to the state the survey court in this case found that delta's violations were knowing for three reasons they said the payroll system was not configured to deduct a maximum of sixty five percent that delta had been withholding at fifty percent for several months prior to receiving a plaintiff letter which created a presumption of noncompliance and that delta didn't offer didn't respond to the to the plaintiff's notice latter now as to the payroll system configuration as as was indicated earlier on i don't think that that issue is germane to the analysis of whether delta was knowingly violating the order at issue but was it ever testified to as or ever brought to the court's attention how many i know most that the delta deals with for getting back about the payroll system i believe that on again they were able to adjust the system to increase the withholding to the maximum amount but also i believe that the case law indicates that employer has obligations are satisfied under the act when they mail initiate or deliver a payment who withheld payment which dealt a dead in every instance and as to the presumption of noncompliance or the presumption of unknowing violated violation created by several months of withholding at fifty percent on the presumption in thirty five dollars a that specific language indicates that the presumption applies to the failure of a payer on more than one occasion to pay amounts withheld to the state and delta paid all amounts withheld to the state on every occasion so i don't believe that the presumption applied here also the st time that delta became aware that it was under withholding child support was when they received burns letter and at no time prior to that were they on notice that they were under withholding and there's a twenty one thousand kids from the th district called the which was brought up in the indulges motion to reconsider the court's ruling on summary judgment which talks about when a violation of the act becomes knowing and hundley the employer had two months of noncompliance followed by a letter from the indicating that they were not compliant and then the employer continued to not withhold income from the employee's pay and what the court said in huntly is that on the st two months of violations were unknowing they later became known after they were put on after the employer was put on notice of the failure to withhold by through the letter from the  statutory language of forty five j indicates that it applies when in and is receiving income withholding payments and subsequently fails to receive one of the scheduled payments from a pay or and the legislative history of forty five dollars j indicates intent to apply to missed payments it was added to the act to give employers the opportunity to make up a missed withhold in before being subject to penalties under thirty five  there is only four cases that discuss the act subsequent to two thousand and twelve and only three of them really talk about forty five j in two of the cases the never sent a forty just concurring opinion indicates that forty five dollars j non greasy notice is required in circumstances in which an obligation had previously been receiving payments from a pay or but subsequently failed to receive one of the scheduled payments and here there was no nonpayment the plaintiff received all spics scheduled payments from delta in a timely manner so our position is that forty five j is in a p sent a lump sum that was purported to be the difference between fifty and sixty in the fifty and sixty five but you did not send any interest with that no and actually it ok go ahead no i'm sorry if you can i'm sorry introduce my point is that it seems pretty clear interest would have been due well i don't know that interest was due because i don't i don't think that ringback a delta paid all of the the amounts that it withheld to the states so there was no nonpayment there was no missed payment so i don't believe that forty five dollars day applied in that the interest was due and the amount that that delta did send to the plaintiff was actually more than the amount that she was she had requested in her letter so delta actually went back and they reckon reconciled like a greater time period of payments than what was included well i i believe that forty five k does not in the language however the penalties under forty five j refer back to thirty five a and so if i think that the any penalty imposed under forty five still is subject to the known standard because and this goes to what was discussed in hungary if an employer is unknowingly violating an order then receives a non receipt notice but forever really for whatever reason doesn't act in response to that the court said it would be not it would be crazy to penalize that employer for the prior unknowing violations just because they didn't act in response to the forty five dollars j notice so you still have to show that the one hundred dollars a day is where the one thousand dollars a day it's one hundred dollars per day for each day that the payment is on unpaid up to a maximum of ten thousand dollars per instance of under or of non paid support so there were three dollars pay periods that followed the november nd two thousand and fifteen notice from plaintiff and so each time a  period had an under withheld child support payment following that notice would be subject to the one hundred dollars per day penalty up to a maximum of ten thousand dollars in total the under withheld amount is paid percent interest penalty and the one hundred dollars per day penalty statute doesn't say nine percent and one hundred dollars per day does it no it doesn't but i would argue if no it doesn't i think that if an employer under if you read thirty five dollars forty five cents together if forty five dollars if after receiving a forty five dollars j notice an employee and employer paid to the employee or played to the average the child support that was owed plus nine percent interest i don't think the the penalty would kick in for that period so you would just be looking at what was under withheld or what was twelve weeks behind on his payments delta never submitted an affidavit the said we didn't see that box or the x wasn't on the copy that was sent to us it had actual notice there's no genuine issue of material fact wrote in our brief but it lays it out in crystal clear english except lee how to determine the specific percentage it's five percent more when there's an disclosure and there's another term percent if they're not supporting another not a specific factual sense that we do not want the employers turning around and trying to put the burden on the parents regarding the compliance with the order the burden is exclusively in all respects and the blanks in the form i'm still touts by the custodial parent so for example the figure in the case caption the numerals but about ninety eight percent of it is she if the form does not tell them that he is not supporting another family how do they know that well considering i'm going to use common sense but they know it because he works for that he's their employer you know how many people work for delta airlines correct and then don't i mean come on how would they know this particular individual has never had a child that he suborning how would you know that be amended i mean it's a set order so maybe the form itself should have an extra line item to address it well counsel you cannot hold delton responsible for the way the order was prepared the preprinted portion of it  but if that's the case then we don't even have to trust the nd family because we've got in the order that is more than twelve weeks in arrears we don't have to prove to violations by delta it was no way we have to prove that fifty percent w we've got that in spades with regard to your marriage disclosure so the court makes excellent points and while i'm more concerned obviously from my perspective i'm protecting the custodial parent because that's the objective trust forget given it can excuse as to why on earth day ignored the arrearage disclosure it never gets released i keep asking for it in the briefing but it never happens and the answer is there is no explanation here from what i gather over the last four or five minutes of your response to just disturbances statement or question is that it's a slam dunk that it should have been a fifty five instead of it that the per withheld should have been once at least fifty five percent based on that oxycontin and how if it was at least fifty five percent and you take five percent and you correlate that to the fifty percent that was elected that is a centrally ten percent of what was collected that wasn't collect or pretty close which means if there is to be a penalty for no t why isn't it the same percentage as what five percent is to fifty percent because the statute does not hang out is substantial compliance partial that stimulates to eight and gentill issue if they had been making the payments timely but only made eighty percent of the payments that they were collecting then i might buy your analogy or your syllogism but you're you're mixing apples to oranges well i believe that the court is stating that because there was partial compliance why shouldn't there be a partial penalty is that is that is the act as saying that you are claiming that the whole ball of wax is based upon the fact that they should have that they either knew instructively or they should have known that they weren't paying fifty five percent they know one good way paid fifty percent when they knew that was the permutation as or possibilities of the him out that should have been collected and dispersed one was fifty one was five hundred and fifty one was sixty and one was sixty five correct and so they were wrong now the question is were they wrong knowingly or are they wrong unknowingly were they negligent or were they malevolence were they committing reckless disregard was it an intentional poor or what was it the answer is that you don't have to prove malevolence or wolf and you have to prove now which the courts have been very clear about that and they knew from the order this point has been case the mississippi employer thought we don't know we don't know any money under mississippi law under this and they were incorrect about it they were malevolent but they were incorrect about that in the in r grew close blue shield said we're only paying the doctor's office not the doctor and so therefore therefore we could have had a no one violation because we've got an explanation for why we didn't follow it so the points that both of they just they didn't follow the order and that's what it's required and i heard on your opposing counsel in her oral argument talking about a number of these orders that appeared on their face to be conflicting there were no orders that were conflicting during two thousand and fourteen it during the period in question the order was censored under oath under twenty it's two thousand and fourteen that was the one and only order that was in effect for the next we were paying going to riddiford order let me tell you why it happened there was no story here about any clerical error or any oversight this is not the situation that was dealt with in the other cases and this was not immediately rectified remember i understood it was not rectified excuse me when you say wasn't immediately react that rectified how much time between their their son the mother her mother and so again i'm not saying it's malevolence going back to a term we don't approve malevolence but what i am saying is that there isn't any reason to fear sorry for delta i mean is not an unsophisticated employee this employer it's an order it's supposed to follow the order it didn't do that it was told about it it didn't read it that it didn't do it and it's still to nothing so there is a until seven weeks after they were served with process in this case and there is ample case authority where the courts are looking at the concept of the employer and saying there was no crime trucked to cation here and so our position here is that there was a knowing violation committed and as of january of two thousand and fifteen every single payment tell to new was to look period for that reason they are liable in november they received a demand letter they read it they admitted it was correct well told him to look it sixty five percent they didn't say two we know where the recent married they knew he wasn't married in november just like they did before him and so they said we all were the money so my comment is that it has always been so and or said sixty five percent is your position the order stated that based on the box being checked for the original scotia risk to fifty five percent and because they had no basis to believe he was supporting another family sixty five percent if they had a basis to believe it and that could justify that liability of over withholding there is no risk because while the order is an effect what wait a nd i'm sure is a risk because you're withholding more money than you're entitled to withhold so my question is this twelve weeks that you're relying on how is the employer to know that that twelve week percentage remains intact is as is all the lawyers obligation to find out the way that the employer knows it's because the order remains in effect and if the order is amended to reflect new information or a new withholding order is censored then it's the obligation of the custodial parent to send a copy to the employer but while that order is in effect there is no liability potential liability to the employer because they are complying with a court order ok i  in the event and employer no one glee let's assume that there's an issue as to whether there is been a no one violation and let's assume for the sake of argument that there is not a knowing  and then a letter is sent it's a man letter that reflects that there's a violation and the employer receives it that's what happened in hama they had a mistake they thought that they were meeting all the funds they got a letter they found out that they retain at that money for six more months they knew what onceover because they already knew from the income withholding order they knew also from the demand letter that money had to be paid to mispronounce and they didn't pay it they don't get to say oh no because we didn't know it's in october and we know in november we could just get that money and definitely so whether the knowledge was obtained when the order was centered november of two thousand and fourteen which is what we claim or whether the knowledge was obtained when the letter was sent and they admitted it which is november two thousand and fifteen either way they knowingly failed to remit the funds that were to under that income withholding order and huntley never dealt with that issue it was never raised in that case and therefore it's not  occurred in two thousand and twelve has a court in any district been asked to address the issue of what happens when there is spokes a violation of section thirty five  and a violation of forty five remember in huntly there wasn't a thirty five a violation because it was a computer error and schmidt all there was a thirty five day violation what the custodial parent never sent out the demand letter so they never actually address the forty five change this case and both issues and we went to the statutory language where it states in section forty five that if you  not the section this sub section there's going to be a penalty for doing that and we stated in our proof this language has to be a making a partial payment now delta could have written a response letter stating here is why we think our position is correct or you pointed out that we didn't withhold enough here is the difference they could have taken either one of those two options but because they did not make the required payment they had to respond and although the court didn't ask this looking at the bigger picture i would also state that the reason why the interpretations of what the intent of the legislature was when it in acted forty five j one being that it relates to none payment of anything vs a payment but it was not  receiving income withholding payments under the set decide not receive a payment required under the income withholding notice that's the operative language there's no ambiguity we didn't get the payment that was required without payment we got a partial payment but the legislature stated the payment required specifically and might to address the point that the court is raising there's no ambiguity there's if you don't make the payment that's required you don't get partial credit for it that's the way the statute treats it doesn't state if any pain dismay we don't go down the slippery slope of what if it's ten percent forty percent because ys why would anybody if there was not insufficient income ever  withhold more than fifty percent on an income was holding court then i understand your argument correctly there is a double penalty in every instance where supposedly there is a question about the amount to withhold in so forty five k is an independent statute as long as the employer responds to the claim made of the custodial parent there's no violation they just have to take a position we agree or disagree and here's the reason why this will double penalty death forty five section forty five requirement that's a requirements to thirty five dollars it's an independent obligation to respond to that letter and if the responses we disagree with  parents that's perfectly fine they're allowed to get that response the legislature two options they don't have an option open or and get and forcing the custodial parent to sue they don't have an option to say w the money is so we're just going to keep it and let's see what happens forty five che is not a double penalty there's a penalty for the knowing violation of thirty five dollars day because they didn't file income withholding order in the rich disclosure box case to be remanded to the trial court for that determination because it has never been fully fleshed out and so there are multiple multiple thoughts on that i can share them with your honor but i just know that it's never been fully fleshed out our position would be a lesser the question after during your five minutes and maybe you flesh it out that argument a violation of an employer who fails to respond to forty five dollars j can essentially eradicate or wipe out an employer's pr on knowing violation of thirty five dollars a which would defeat the purpose of the legislature in including the knowing language in thirty five a the knowing requirement was specifically added to the act to ensure that the penalty would not apply to employers who are acting in compliance or attempting to comply with the order it was intended to apply to employers who disregard  court's withholding order which was not evident in this case furthermore there is a ten thousand dollars penalty cap that is included in thirty five dollars under counsel for  same violation of the whistle mis militaru when when would you recover under forty five dollars j you would recover under forty five dollars j if there was the and then the the penalties under thirty five dollars would kick in i still believe though that the penalty when the court looks at a violation of forty five dollars day the on and uses thirty five dollars day as the basis for calculating that penalty the no mean requirement is still there so you would still have to show that that violation that the obligation sent the notice on that they were attempting to rectify was a knowing violation because  is and get double recovery under both if there was no pain no i don't think that you can get double recovery because when you look at thirty five day it clearly states that the  doesn't receive a payment there is non payment day and that individual notifies the pay or it gives the pay your an opportunity to make up the payments are you do you mean no payment at all correct i mean no payment non payment a missed entirely missed payment well if you look at if you follow mr rosen's rosen simmons argument then you could say well you know what i'm going to hold on to another ten percent since i'm not going to really get penalized because i'm paying it but i'm not paying more at the amount that they want does that seem michael it's a little absurd  well there's no there's no incentive to the employer to with hold on to that payment because it for example with delta there's money that's designated from k roll to go to an employee and then when delta calculates the the withholding there just calculate a portion of the disposable income from that money so it's either going to the employee or it's going to the child support recipient if if they're not if there  that i think is important to address and this this goes back to whether there's a substantial compliance exception to the thirty five a and i know counsel for pla position is that there is no substantial compliance essentially strict compliance are subject to liability and he mentioned a case the goal of case which is a nd district case that this court decided what's interesting vala and i think supports the fact that substantial compliance is contemplated as compliance with thirty five days in cholera the employer was located in mississippi illinois sent a withholding order to the employer in mississippi illinois withholding order directed message to the employer to withhold up to sixty five percent of the employee's disposable income mississippi law said the maximum is fifty you can't withhold more than fifty and rather than withholding fifty the mississippi employer didn't withhold anything and just didn't act in response to the order and while the court didn't expressly say this i think what's contemplated by that i had the employer attempted to comply with the order by withholding at least what it states that it should withhold there would have been compliance and could have potentially avoided the penalties and so again getting to the ambiguity in the order and whether what amount is appropriate to withhold i think any of those the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of delta since it's a penal statute and it should be subject to a pro payer interpretation the other thing that is is ambiguous in the act is what is the amount does it need an income withholding order so section twenty of the section twenty c outlines the specific things that need to be in a withholding order when it sent to the pay or and to things that need to be in there are the dollar amounts that the the pay or is required to withhold  for regular support and for rear edges and so it refers to the amount being the dollar amount but the dollar amounts that are in the withholding order become meaningless when you get in situations like here where you're calculating disposable and you're calculating withholding based on disposable income and you're trying to use the percentages the maximum percentages they're allowed under the c c p a to calculate with full name on employer's violations of the order under thirty five dollars they did not become knowing until after it received the forty five dollars j notice and the employer continued to not  then they withheld and not send over payments to the state and so it was that continued noncompliance following the forty five j notice what triggered the penalties and so the penalties were calculated from the date of the notice on w the plaintiff letter by increasing the withholding payment it took two dollars holes that you suggested that that you did and the two subsequent pay periods you did correct it for sixty dollars and then also one hundred and sixty five percent but you didn't send the past due monies until six months later how do you justify that correct and so the delta's reading a forty five dollars j was that that money that they had since they had withheld and paid income to the state it was not necessarily a task to support amount that was out however after the lawsuit started an attempt to try to minimize issues and to avoid any sort of issue over that they paid the money but at the time that they received the nine dollars received the the plaintiff letter they did not believe that they were in violation of forty five dollars j because they had been withholding in pain income in amounts that they thought were appropriate at that time well once you're put on notice that it is the or or the wrong percentage goes all the way back to november of two thousand and fourteen why would delta conclude that if it was wrong during that period that the mom isn't entitled to her  child support i don't i think delta didn't conclude that they were wrong it was that they could increase the withholding limit to sixty five they would have been wrong if they didn't withhold anything because forty five j that interpretation  that november nd two thousand and fifteen that it could increase that's withholding right but didn't that letter also indicate that delta you've been doing it wrong since last november that's what the letter indicated however delta didn't didn't reach the conclusion that it had been doing it wrong since last november it was withholding fifty percent and thought it was complying with the idea when you get people around the circle tire shop what in the letter would lead  but at least with respect to the twelve weeks cert delta contacted h f s the child support enforcement unit after it received her letter to get clarity on what amount it should be withholding it's important to know justice just to clarify about how confusing these orders can be that there was actually another amended withholding order that was issued to delta right before no receipt of the plane just delta got clarity on the amount that should be had withheld when it contacted h f s and that was prospectively then is up are there any other questions you st i have to correct myself i gave an incorrect answer to a question asked by justice jorgensen the income withholding order is not filled out by an attorney or a party only the court clerk fills it out in the typewritten form one an income withholding order that reflected the arrearages disclosure at the very last nd counsel stated well maybe there was another order that didn't really address in arrearage but there's nothing state that there was any confusion they knew that in the order that was  effect during the year in question there was an x in that box so again there's a knowing violation because they got a copy of that order with regard to the partial performance exception  delta claims that the court should impute the knowing requirement from section thirty five a and disregard the this subsection language that's actually in j and if there was supposed to be a knowing requirement they would have written those words in there so our position is that's that the statute should be interpreted to require payment wasn't made the no response was given that subsection was violated there's a consequence of the court set to ponder what relief if any would be to in the event there is the court finds that section forty five j had in fact been violated and by late there's no chain you an issue of material fact that was in response to the letter the letter the demand letter contains twenty one claimed violations they are listed in a table that date the amount they met with how our position would be and again i'm doing this quickly but i do want to answer the court's question our position would be that because the incentive for delta to with him not withhold the right amount is there any incentive for them not to the right there is no incentive in case after case where employer said oh there's going to be  a windfall to the plaintiffs let's not let's not permit this to occur and the nd just isn't that's not relevant in the chain decision the court stated right there is that there is no windfall let me ask you this question forty five j when  when i think it is the delta put in the legislative history and a bit because looking at the intent of the legislature regarding forty five j i think it's important  and where the the sponsored a bill i think it was indicated that it was representative pritchard that they don't want to bet he said we don't want to soften the fact that people are owed child support but what we're trying to do is to allow company that's doing the withholding know that they have an obligation if there's been a withholding missed they can make it up and not have an onerous penalty i would ask for your support so i mean you're asking in your cross the plate for even more of a penalty than than initially allowed where does the intent of the legislature show that this is permissible or incur i would carry on a couple of responses st off the legislature wanted responses given by the employer the legislature could have stated this is a crime requisite to thirty five dollars a recovery this is part and parcel of a thirty five dollars a violation and it is to  ation of this subsection snuck in there because somebody scribbled it in at the last minute so my comment is that i don't know how we ignored the express an ambiguous language that references forty five j dealt us position has been we're just not going to trust those two words no matter how many times mr burns brings it up we're never going to address the phrase this subsection because there isn't an answer the court has said if look behind the language maybe they should have written it this way maybe they should have been a different light and i don't know maybe the court is cracked clearly i'm i'm raising a position which i am i think is supported by the express language i didn't find anything that said you can if you file a thirty five day you might as well if your employer blow off a forty five chain notice because there's no consequence it's all part of the sa parentage so once you commit in knowing violation they toss the demand letter away no harm no foul because it's just part of a separate subsection but i don't get that impression from the language and i understand what the court quoted but i know what the language states and if i'm jay relates to a non payment meaning zero payment then it and thirty five dollars would be mutually exclusive would they not they be distinguishable on their elements of proof if the phrase nonpayment had pitman into forty five cherry yes but since it hasn't and instead they wrote the required this i'm just making a rhetorical or slime ok ok and now i get to my question which i said i wouldn't raise before which is based upon your understanding of what you believe is the violation of twenty one responses they didn't the violation lasted for one hundred and fifty days there's a cap of one hundred days so be twenty one dollars times one hundred dollars days times one hundred dollars that would be answered one that would be the simple to wreck to answer the court is going to be offended by that because it was the result that would occur and again i'm not saying that i agree with that but i understand from the court's questioning that i would say that at the very least we had two of the twenty one but my opinion still would be the original one which is twenty one responses should have been given what was the stated reason for why i judge kleeman refused to grant really order he stated this was in the ruling  st impression for better or for worse this this really is ah i guess the court will have to grapple with that but i think the language supports our position independent of what the result might