that the general assembly has created a harmonious body of law to address to reasonable concern for public safety and its determination that people who are subject to domestic violence protection orders pose an increased risk see to their partners and children in all instances firearms to people who may or may not be violent or at least show a tendency toward violence as i understand it you're telling here that ipso facto or it is presumed that somebody text e incorporated and its subsidiaries a successful business and i want him to be rewarded for his efforts and keep working hard to make sure that the business putting to the chase i think we've learned two things st of all the subject of the alleged victim does not have to be in fear of physical safety of the less correct you to support an order of whatever it would be a legitimate legal right to was doing or does for these entities which the evidence suggests very little as far as actual day to day control is he has no data they can he has no role in the day to day operations or really anything to do with these companies other than a almost thirty one million dollars that evidence that expert testimony was credited by judge shelby there was no contrary evidence so i manifest wait review this is a nonstarter hit it on the head as far as can this rise to the level of harassment and can there be hand canisters if we assume surveillance in this context to you know to gather evidence of cohabitation was committed and you recognize it which is gratifying that i mean it could rise if somebody is looking in your windows twenty four dollars hours a day that's saying that happened here that would be excessive that would qualify but i would agree with one hundred percent if they were bigger they were getting in her face  there was there was the one instance of the camera flash in this book runner but other than that she was affectively unaware that any of this was going on until the until discovery came out and all the bills came out to see how much money was paid but other than that but and i think that legitimate purpose if you have a legitimate purpose you don't meet the definition of harassment or the domestic violence act with the standard of review of the parity of the word and work very manifest way pursuing to best versus past the evidence and there if if if it's i think that if it's clearly not producing any relevant information or allowing him to or or leading to some place where you can go take strike that  something or if it's leading you into a path to obtain information i think the purpose is diligent and if it's if it's becoming just keeping tabs on her or keeping tabs on somebody with without and  not having the purpose of gathering evidence of cohabitation is your honor if you claim that you're asking us to some with fashion a remedy here and so what i'm asking you for is what are the factors what should we be looking at when it's on day one it's a legitimate purpose week one month sixteen dollars months but it's some point it stops being a legitimate so i mean there's always something else out there some other piece of evidence that you can fin but it what point does the balance begin to tip the other way and did you cross it because i'm thinking that's the way the trial just looked at you would too far right the the the evidence the surveillance in this case stop and goes on and we have information that that that we think we can prove this again and if we get enough information i think you're you're justified in reinstituting the surveillance it in this it doesn't i don't see why that is not something that every maintenance pay or communication if they can are usually close enough that they can get punched in the homes and if you're surveilling and you are not within fifty feet of this individual then are you doing something that a reasonable person might consider to be harassment in other words surveillance can be close it can be inside someone's immediate presence it can be outside the presence it can be within their presence for way that they don't see you because you're behind a tree or behind three trees well what did the trial court do in so far as the limitations that were placed upon your client were they no contact no surveillance whatsoever or was it to try and say fine if a way that you're not interface is i believe your business strictly surveillance in an undefined way without without a lot of the limitation without any sort of any sort of  is it have something to do with axes or a state planning war what is it that we supposedly like granting your request would actually be affecting something property as opposed to being gifted i think there are this is more in the nature of correcting the judgments ok just keep keeping the judgment consistent that through good men you know was gifted this pursuing he's a good jurist he gave us a great trial he's smart and tough when he says something like for his efforts and to keep working hard to make sure that this business continues to succeed started out to be part of the state planning but then because of his efforts in the businesses he had sort of a dual purpose does that necessarily mean yes very well it does because  is a trust that was set up in two thousand sex ten years after the marriage and during the marriage and then we question whether that is a true trust or not because it's not signing doesn't have the components of a real come up before and there's there's plenty of reason including public policy why cars should be taken away or the right to own guns at home guns should be taken away from someone who who violates it them to the act it's there to protect many many spouses who have been abused by the by generally by the other spo of whatever was going on but i think that the fact that she didn't always going on sticks to the awfulness of it speaks of the fact that it wasn't intrusive at the time it didn't cross any it didn't cross any lines ability legality don't forget the the people that were hired to do this are licensed in their own regard the one that justifies former f b i licensed private investigator these people have their own rules to comply with the state license all that the evidence at the trial was that that the surveillance was cleared with local police ahead of time they had no issue with that either ice we seek a straight reversal on on the contribution or with no every man we see does that as explained in there and in our priest we see it as a failure of proof and this course very clear as to what the attorneys obligations are from an evident standpoint about what has to be proved what you have to show to prove up reasonable in this in this district they didn't do that in fact not only do they to not only did they not do what you told them to do in kane