assessment of this treatment needs they did not describe the services that they're recommending for treatment they did not state what the goals of each type of the treatment were or even to the paid a time table for accomplishment of those goals but now if these treatment repor hearing they could have fixed that i guess by dr mousa testimony but they did not they did not have dr ellis testify to any specific findings any specific treatment any specific areas where they thought that they can prove a crime to care for paul facts the only way that they could have rectified anywhere near the case were this code to do something to alleviate the situation or maybe the attorneys aren't doing something here i believe that they do and i think some of the cases that i cited in my brief and i will a fitness area or of the state's not going to request a fitness hearing it is the duty of the court to make sure that mr olson is receiving appropriate treatment that if it's not working but they find appropriate measures maybe a different you have that treatment plan filed do you choose a little bit different it doesn't require that upfront but what it says is that if somebody is committed pursuant to g t o within thirty days they have to have a treatment plan and then it outlines what th treatment plan requires and in this case that wasn't done and what that has the effect of that is it has made it almost impossible for a judge strat to to know what's going on down the knowledge and he doesn't know what happens all the time and it happens many times in cases where someone is diagnosed with pedophilia they are resistant to treatment because they don't believe that they have a problem so there are but there have to be ways for these doctors of these facilities to treat that and to hampering his progress at elgin additionally i think that after the fitness hearing it should be remitted for events you comply with the treatment plan provision else you should be required to submit a report a plan to the court is these are the steps that we're going to take and then when they come back for their six month review hearing they can report to the court and say this is what happened and this thing this happened he refused this he did this we wanted him into this program and he ultimate question because that is an issue for the judge to determine or the jury in this case i'm not exactly certain why mr wilson's attorney said what he said i don't know why he has the opinion that he has because the record is depleted of any specific instances or things that they are referring to now obviously they must be referring to things that happened in the past but as we all know fitness is you know it's not a static disease it if you're fit one minute  and he's given a legitimate hearing then yes i think that it would be appropriate and it would have protected his rights but in this circumstance i don't believe so one of the other issues i have with this is that the court is completely done away information the court was presented with that the court should have either requested or appointed another expert to conduct an evaluation of mr olson to term and whether or not there was a difference of opinion as to his  in december of two thousand and nine there was the discharge hearing where he was found that not guilty and was then sent for an extended period of treatment there was a motion for his commitment by the state and in february of two thousand and eleven he was fired and subject to admission to the department of human services until twenty thirty seven so that is his status right now the  two orders that we are reviewing are these six months first six months review and then a subsequent review ninety days after that so this point the defendant is in the custody of the g p o department that first of all i would like to make a forfeiture argument and i do make that my brief if the defense or defense counsel had a problem with the the report that was submitted that should have been brought up at trial when it could have been in some way remedied you mean at the hearings right i'm sorry there was no objection to the reports that were submitted in the defendant's appendix to his to his brief there are the two records and in between those two reports is a letter and that is from the facilities saying that the next the following word word is the treatment report and th accept treatment so if it is both refusing to be evaluated and if using treatment then there's very little to include in the sort of treatment program but the court does put  treatment what do you make of the ferry between doctor with her so that he fit i think that that is certainly his opinion but ultimately the question if it is for prior experiences with the defendant but he has these taxes which explains that in fact what you know dr malice is opinion is that he could cooperate with counsel he in fact is not and he's besides dr now says testimony and that is what the trial judge exercise discretion being as he's required to do if i'd see him on that i'd like to point out that at this point the debate is the second human was ninety days after i'm not sure exactly why it wasn't one of the required one hundred eighty days because there is every six months they're required to sit in the hearing which is a safeguard against  it covers all the bases that that they can do within those limitations if you look at the purpose of the treatment plan which  function and certainly could be clearer if they follow the bullet point you know with exactly those fine points but all the information is in there particularly when it is supplemented with dr analysis testimony at the hearing consistently has found the defendant to be fit speak he was cross examined by the attorney the judge hears that testimony he has the faxes from the defendant to consider in the defendant's prior behavior so all of those to min think i don't believe so i think when you're when you talk about the hearing there's nothing that i was reading to see at you there is nothing that particularly refers that's going to be one of the methods that they will use to determine that there's no requirement that you know the treatment reported be at the hearing in this case it was and at this point as i said he's being detained because of the mental illness and the danger to public he's not being detained because he is  think as a result the language tends to be very mixed but at this point the fitness and itself is not relevant to the defendant  have the hearings but those should be under the same protections as afforded them mental health good and within the mental health code it does mention in particular in because he won't speak to them the value which it's clear from the record that since two thousand and five he has a very rare occasions agreed to the occasional participation in so again that the facility is doing their best to offer him treatment but he is refusing it and they have the staffing switch being asian and in fact when defendant attends the staffing he's rewarded with  point but it does adequately cover all the bases especially with dr malices testimony particularly in light of the fact that there was no objection to these reports at the times of the hearings where it could have been they were unable to diagnose set until that time and probably diagnosis so that he was able to stay an option and given the facts and circumstances of the underlying charge that's not a stretch of the imagination  additional the first hearing that we had in august the only specific finding that he made was that because of paul's previous behavior which was not further specified and his lack of cooperation with counsel that is why h