consider daniel case condition at this point given that he was an inpatient stayed steady and given that he was getting treatment and that it did not allow the evidence to come out through the treat would preclude the state from bringing in all sorts of evidence which we think is relevant to a determination of the expectation of conduct on the part of this person and that is actually at the heart of the issue here is to whether or not not just is will they're correct i must of course it we need this case and in terms of this person he spent his charge and so i understand that in terms of you know out of doing anything in terms of going ok there's really nothing to be done but i think that given that we have  intention to do something which i mean this discharge could have been could have been made right at this point he's now saying and the minute that happens i'm not taking my medication you have to consider that in terms of whether or not he is subject to not to remission much of the elements throughout is there there anything that went to future conduct it was basically speculative because it was remote not necessarily going to occur and therefore outside the scope of the hearing that was the this much the state was able to get and the doctor dr paul said that in fact he needed treatment the daniel kaye did not believe you needed for their treatment he did not know he had a mental illness but he wasn't he didn't have any insight it he didn't intend to take his medication but dr paul said he does need further treatment were in disagreement on that he does have a mental illness and something which was stricken which i think would have been very relevant is he  his medication and the institutional setting the inpatient setting because the medication and day x institutional setting are brought him to the condition he is now to much improved condition he is in now but he needs both  down and the medication even alone without the in patient without the institutional would not have brought him to this when they were both needed and still needs treatment that's his opinion and that's a protection of course into the future but somehow person's illness no why would that give course you know not only has the legislature said that that is a valid consideration a consideration that was not here but also it's it's clear that we need to know why  to this point to determine that discharging itself the fact that he will no longer be institutionalized the fact that he no longer well that he will actually be able to say no to his medication  something that it was not whether he had reviewed the medical history whether you talk to parents there are as somebody in the family and terms of this person's condition when he came in but also the doctor policy asked and there is an objection that was  d as to what tests behavior he had been exhibiting prior to hospitalization and prior to medication was he on medication at the time he came in those types of statements and they were all objection sustained and that at the doctor  and you know as i point out in my brief we can find nothing which said that the respondent had any type of ability to say that he's not going to take the stand and not going to testify if this is a civil statutory right we believe that that the state was able to call and without some type of discussion or seizing without you know any type of right to stand on to say no there should have been an adverse physicians for this person yes are there any other questions of the right  how that came into play skins kind of curious but if he decided not to take medication in the future which sometimes does happen that he has a right to do that world cup of the chase so to speak ok we've discussed rudeness i believe most witnesses already indicated that your client is not going to be retried he's not going to be institutionalized unless there's more incidence or evidence that he's in the sole challengers all the things that you did don't really seem to address the issue which is was here are committed not was reversible error committed or was harmless here it is so i would appreciate it if you would address the the legal aspects of the issues failure to allow the respondent to testify as an adverse witness was not here the commission was very clear about now permitting that to happen extending the fifth amendment right to now proceedings now there was a question whether or not there was anything in the statute that would operate to prohibit the respondent being called  know that's grant the governor's commission or the sixty people that were talking were really just good judges of the governor's experts on the commission that came up with this privilege with really thinking in terms of attorney that a client will most assuredly cease taking their medication there is evidence of record here the point is take medication leave a mole is that yes individuals do go off medications at times for many many different reasons that if they become symptomatic that when the issue is dealt with  best as a prophylactic to keep somebody in the hospital because of what may or may not occur in the future in the exercise of their rights or if they have money  whether they don't work in the future to disagree with the washington older actress well even in the washington holding they pointed out that the person is which was horrifically case condition and in the washington case how he had sexually assaulted somebody whilst it's real and there's no evidence that they were spotted in gauging any kind of that kind of conduct while  contact and and the psychiatric state of the individual now if if that psychiatric state is impacted by medications that could be or be some ice impacted or it could be the stability of the institution it could be having three square meals a day there could be all kinds of things that impact that psychiatric stability but the bottom line is that he was stable and we don't we don't confine psychiatrist he did not provide any opinion regarding his evaluation he was he did not provide a report to the parties he was not appointed whether they can look at past behaviors and whether they have the ability to consider relevant evidence or evidence which shows how we got to where we got to especially when we know that some of why we got to where he is at this point is going to be taken away is actually in conflict with the purpose of the statute institut is to determine whether this person is subject to in the ontarian mission and that requires us to look the court to look at whether it's reasonably expected that he will be a danger that