act itself was a constitutionally they and in discussing that they were discussing some of the terms about whether or not there was a case there and those cases it was a criminal case where johnno back from talking about the anything in that e mail stream for any purpose to anyone why would you propose that if we if we send it back for a new order how would you propose it be drafted and what what types of speech or words could be restraint ok if you were to send it back you could crap an order that says that you can't publish that email spray or talk about so if you can find it that he can use the email for a harassing her best which in this case the definition of harassment is for i know that not prior to haha pleasure reasonable purpose so if that were what was limited that might be ok we have problems with the findings which really gets you in a minute well but i don't know that you really  the findings other than to say that the statute wasn't complied with in terms of listing well the court didn't make any binds and that's the problem the court did make findings it's just that i'm not certain that the court specifically went through the statutory sections but there's no question there's a record of her findings well there's anything in fact she denied certain relief didn't she she did tonight aren't really but what she didn't do is explain why it was necessary to enter an order protection to was any analysis as to whether or not there was a reason to protect her in the future well are there ongoing support obligations there i'm going to work out of patience is there a business relationship between the parties he's making most decisions there are certain times when he has to get in and he in terms of doing something those are major decisions and the court found that since the time the divorce in two thousand and seven the parties rarely emailed each other to each other and rarely talk to each other and so there were ongoing you know it's sort of all came up when the property that was being sold in indiana that there was a dispute over whether the during the war or what what was the nature of the e mails how would you describe them in terms of if you don't do this that i'm going to do then you explain what what was the he she had changed her e mail address so she had she didn't receive e mail he called them on seven twenty first and then that time she said she hadn't seen the e mail and so he said that he said i need to know your answer about talking about things for instance that are in that e mail yelling back that she's not a good housekeeper the fact that he didn't like the way she took care of her kids the fact that his marriage to him was over during a trip to  various things happen and he realized he had no no connection with her those kinds of things are could be talked about for totally not reassessing purposes like to me i had to to work to get up you know  portion of that he mailed out that had been sealed so he had talked to his therapist about it he can talk to his friends about it and he should be able to do that as a similar issue as long as he's that using it to say well i'm not going to pay you next mom that's right how much does he have to pay every month well it it depends but yes i like hundred twenty five thousand dollars support obligation to her here and what happens then is that my that she makes either from  who are related oftentimes certain ways and have certain relationships here well maybe they'll work out an agreement that she can give up all of her support obligations in exchange for him not telling the world what's in the e mails so i don't think that's what he's asking her doing that's not well you know but what was it issue in the previous decision was this idea that if you don't drop this request i'm going to let everybody in the world know this so i'm just saying maybe that maybe that will be what the result of of this will be that she'll say listen let's just let's bag everything and then you agree not to disclose what you didn't disclose for thirty one years but now you need to disclose well up first of all i think it's right to dispose it's just a question of what the purpose is yet will the work found that that there wasn't a reasonable purpose for doing it on this occasion correct but that doesn't mean that you speculate and determine that he wouldn't have a reasonable reason to do it on another circumstance yeah no it's just that there are continuing obligations that you don't but i have to say your honor the findings communicate i think it's very very rarely mr i know backgrounds that all he's in the real estate business and that that's what that was all about so the reason you need to make the findings is not just just because she didn't make  and i think that i have said time and it is that since the judgment in two thousand and seven he rarely talked and communicating and since two thousand and seven she didn't need any type of text from him that well it all came up because of the sale of the property correct no it came up for two reasons one it wasn't that come up after he said it you're going to persist in requesting the attorney fees and the amount  so now the property is sold so maybe it won't come up again and that's really all right well like i suppose but there are still ongoing support obligations no ongoing support obligations and there have been since two thousand and seven and there was never an issue about it before and yet and the statute does allow for the court to consider the likelihood of danger of future abuse right in making that's right but i i'm not sure what that likelihood of teacher abuse would be i mean i don't think it's just a speculative think me as in the domestic violence act you're talking about people generally who have something to do with something with each other frequently like in child custody situations where they have to still have a kid on and it doesn't mean that every time that somebody in one of those situations harass is somebody that in order to actually necessarily has to enter we're not yakking about criminal issues here we're talking about civil here and it's a very little one of the arguments that the conduct order gun extortionate intimidation that occurred in this case but that's not what's at issue in this no i'm just saying though that is one of the arguments that it when someone does send it back for specific findings under the stand story citation and whether or not there's a likelihood of future harassment well in the mint here or in this circuit this district first district here versus does not and should not require this court to reverse to reverse the plenary order of protection when a the evidence of abuse is clear in the record and b that there that the record otherwise still back for the sale of that property isn't that over and done with that one individual of the spirit is over and done with but to suggest that the court that the record doesn't support the finding which would miss the point ex wife as long as it's not used to harass her so there's there's two there's two broad issues in this case your honor one is dealing with a prohibition on harassment stop that's just the harassment injunction where the court apply in the domestic violence context however that there are two alternative roles that this court would apply all the plenary order of protection one is the role that once an individual harasses another individual and a court has a harassing speech so we all agree that harassment even mr novak would agree that harassment in itself isn't protected speech that comes out of a black white case that iraq rights offices is an extension of back onside and that the primary harassing purpose well that's in the past so what but going forward this is this is a an injunction injunction nickols forward and my question is aren't there look you know a myriad of legitimate reasons why these matters would be discussed with third parties and doesn't next fall outside the blackwood case and you know there are six and there may be a legitimate reasons but well there were there are legitimate reasons th the threats to disclose these matters in order to gain advantage in the continuing litigation tween them he had he be prosecuted or found in contempt under their arrest make provisions to quit right right then then what do you need this extra prior restraint for it if you could go to the trial court and you could say we can prove to you trial courts that the reason why he's made this threat is because he wants to gain advantage and by this the reason if it's not used to gain advantage in the litigation what's the reason to keep him from going to his best friends and explaining to him all the things that happened in the last who's going to do this as opposed to actually communicate in the context somebody else although not all suggests although not supported by the record your honor in the event that he if these oprah concerns are of are of concern to the returns to the record on page eighty nine that's where the court actually does walk through the findings so contrary to the suggestion that there are the court doesn't doesn't address the court's us and i quote i'm particularly troubled by the communication that he would be able to obtain the relief he was seeking and he underlines and other once the courts contemplating addressing the severity and the nature of the abuse the court goes on to say that there hasn't been a history of communications that would warrant a requirement that they only communicate defamation case this is a case where somebody has already been found to abuse another part and courts and have the flexibility to take steps to protect abused individuals and then they need flexibility rights that we don't really have that here we don't have that here but after a court say you can't say these things to anyone correct but as with the stay away order there are plenty of and there are plenty of protected speech that prohibit it when  stay away order whether it's stopping by a sing happy birthday whether it's saying hi to your friend that's the neighbor courts recognize that when someone's been abused you have a travelcard has a more liberal more liberal ability to take the steps necessary to provide further abuse and that's why the statute talks about two fourteen seventeen talks that injunctive relief and turn to prevent further use in this case all the court's   something to the effect that if you want to disclose the contents of this that you petition the court it's a it's a great question actually mr and mr novak already has that right under the statute and particular one of the considerations as you can come in and petition the court because as of now all this court has in front of it is a and then part of the order that could be entered would suggest that if there is some reason that you have to provide this information for someone what what's the  necessary to accomplish a reasonable purpose the court found here that the conduct that had occurred at what was going to occur she she did find that the conduct that had occurred clearly was not being used to accomplish the  of the e mail how would they constitute abuse or harass this the same way around or is it just when someone subject to a no contact order that coming over to the abuse party's house and saying happy birthday wouldn't necessarily know i don't see all the allergy at all there and i don't see the similarity someone says you don't have a spouse still if you cannot go to this address is is compared to the question that just i never asked about sitting down talking with a protect your reputation which is not protected and in this case your honor mr novak testifies in reviewing the transfer you see the a fact that disclosure of this information what happened that's now back she talks about how you can read how she started hyperventilating how she felt like she was now why the court granted the relief the court granted the relief because it was being used as the in appropriate tool it wasn't because of her yes she felt property and if the court were to conclude that this is simply what's going to happen again if he's allowed to you know disseminate in exchange for you know but the court didn't specifically say although the court said she was greenlee troubled by there that it was used for this particular purpose and whether that might happen in the future she certainly hinted at that as well correct rather and and in versus using it as a tool to intimidate or force some sort of leverage in the proceedings in front of what the court so there's two there's two injunctions that the court needs to be my father interviewing the case you have the injunction and then you have been emailing junction itself with respect to the harassment and junction in particular the case law supports the supports the proposition that the court does not have to go through each and every finding word for word yet an ordered up poll that if you review the cases that mr novak or mr novak has cited they're all extreme cases where these are cases where not only there are no findings whatsoever but there are cases where the that abusers have been able to fact escape effect prosecution and so if this court were to overturn overturn orders of protection when the evidence of abuse is clear and the statute and and the knacked communicated to mrs novak if you do if you ask for this additional money i'm going to let it go he would be he would have been free to disseminate this information if questioned the court would have to look at your honor it's whether it was and whether  view and the statute that allowed the restriction in that case just like to fourteen the seventeen in our case was to be construed broadly to serve a human purpose in other words when you balance balance the harms you're honest talked about the ways in which mr novak to go to dinner and talk about this these facts and inaccuracies manner but when you balance the harms all the court has asked for is a record that has one purpose or harassing purpose in contrast  on the other side we protecting just general reputation are we protecting the right to be free from fear of the leverage of the threat being implied the out there what's on the other side of the therapist or his relative or friend said there in the marriage she did this or that yes optimistic file says it but if it's connected up with the litigation which you then say that it is and then what you're have the answer my question is what's the other side of the balance the other side of the balances giving this now back this two year period in which she is free from she is one hundred percent free from domestic violence that there's an order that ensures that mr novak's not going to use this information directly or indirectly to harass her will there be some potential overprice potentially but it's not supported by the record and that mr novak had the opportunity to testify at trial as to the reasons why he had a legitimate use to use the scene how is he dead we have a different case here but he didn't take all the court has for it is the same as the trial court had before it which is a record that supports that there was only a harassing purpose for this e mail and so domestic violence second orders of protection it's not looking at what was done in the past it's looking to protect the abused victim in the future that's correct but it is subject to limitations and if if your honour's feel that limitations are appropriate in this case the court need not go through the process of remanding if the court already has in mind the limiting construction that would resolve this case if you turn to the count case which which m stands for the proposition that in order to resolve any overbred problems in the free speech context writers are fleeting free to apply a constructive measure to resolving issues so in this case maybe that if the trial court him specifically referred to the statute and made specific findings in regard to what it's supposed to be doing before entering the order i don't know that we would be here right now that's one of the problems the case law doesn't it's not really our job and the second whether it's necessary to or grant the request of relief in order to protect the petitioner to the court to use those exact words that's the absolutely not but they don't need to one hundred one point two she contemplates on the court a certain amount of money according to the dozen they have to reconcile that amount on an annual basis in other words they're going to be intertwined for a long time mr once turned to extortion in order just when when he doesn't like the way mr novak might be handling a solution there's nothing in the record to say that he won't do it again and at a minimum knowing that the standard in these cases is against the manifest w don't have to look for work for work compliance if your honour's review if you review the record and determine that the record supports the theo order of protection was without it there would likely be continued of you some other it's necessary to it and that's consistent with the purpose of the statue which is to avoid to recognize that that people have committed to massacre violence have been able to escape effective prosecution and if this court were to overturn plenary order for texans for the failure to check the box on the word for word of the findings that purpose would be on the line how do you respond to the to the series of cases or not cases where the individual is already found to be abuse under even a comparable to gnostic violence act these were defamation cases what i'd suggest mag not your honour's is that the use cases are different and so there's different kinds and only review it in that particular context could there be other contacts where that statement isn't defamatory although whether it be parody or some other use of those words that might not be defamation yes but the court can prohibit repetition of that statement refused certain relief but she concluded that there were ongoing there was an ongoing support of the patient and there was some sort of ongoing business relationship doesn't the court have the authority to prevent future abuse in other words using these e mails again for the same purpose that it wishes before that that's exactly what stick with it says that's why the course supposed to look at that and explain on the record that it is  for doesn't it give her peace of mind for ten months that you know i don't have to worry about this when i argue with him over how much money he owes me that he won't use this hammer against me at least for ten months i know object it's like saying he hit her watts and i'm going to that's fine he's it's over with he's not going to do it again but that's actually defeats the whole purpose be behind the domestic violence there and orders of protection there are entered to say that i think you might do that again so i'm going to order that you can't do it and the way that you can't do it is i'm going to ban you from being within a thousand feet of this person what i want it to they have to kind of the whole idea of the court is entering the border saying i'm not going to let you use this because you've used it in appropriately in the past and there's a she wants a good chance you're going to do it again so until next april i'm not going to let you disclose this information to anyone because you've already abused the privilege and i'm afraid you might do it again dispose all of them from asia and i think that's what we call an overbroad prior restraint i don't think the court can do case was well argued well briefed by both the attorneys and will take the matter under