ordinary mining the court of what this case is and is not about this case is about whether or not my client committed contemptuous conduct by making statements on facebook it is not about illinois supreme court rule sixty three it is not about whether or not my client recorded any statements it's simply about whether or not my client is and should be held in contempt of court for posting on facebook you know various estimates of the court but this is a pretty obvious and straightforward case to begin with this isn't a proceeding for indirect civil contempt that's your honest first to to direct your attention to the original amended petition filed by  apple we miss white again in this case nowhere in her amended petition has she ever allege anything any wrongdoing on my clients part simply based on the fact that he posted statements on facebook the only claim that she made against my client was that he recorded he recorded and gave a court proceeding nessie only claim she made against my client in october judge unarguably specifically found that my client never recorded any proceedings at that point where others miss white against pay should have been dismissed at that point she had failed to meet her initial burden that my client had in some way violated a court order which brings me to my second point there was never any court order there was never guarantee you we would have been here a lot sooner than we were when we were because it's simply it's simply not as you can't do it it's the first amendment it's that easy that's the second problem so it water for the courts to have found my claim in contempt there must have been an order that he violated there was no word or secondly he must of been disobedience that order if there's no order there's no way for my client ever be disobedient to the order because there is no order telling him he could or couldn't do something those are the initial judge directly under began making spiritus accusations against the court or court personnel or stating his opinions next time i'm going to come in and pretend to be an attorney maybe i'll get better treatment could he by making those statements i have bet would not be violent to have any court order or validated in the law could they possibly be contemptuous i think it's a factual determination i think then it's possible that something you'd post on facebook could be if it's a factor determination does it have anything to do with an order law i think it does judge i think the difference as the situation that you're talking about where likely it would would be in the courthouse yelling these things and in the courthouse just putting them loud has far different than being alone in our life or and and posting this is this is what i think the that bad things are going to happen to my opinion just bad things are going to happen if you work through those doors because back to exactly and that judges occur i think that i think that what your honour's getting to is what the judge could never have found in this case there's something posing as an attorney when you're not in order to evade security no sir not and not no maybe i'm misunderstanding your question but i think he's not human in the sense that it's there if it's going to happen with the next five or ten so there's that issue the other issue continues to be procedural your honour's so miss what he can never prove in her petition because the trial court failed specifically found that my client had not made any recordings the trial court then goes on to say but that's not the end of the story was to write it down because i think you've done something contentious so i'm going to hold you in contempt he initially did hold my client in contempt in october and reversed vacated that portion of his order and allowed my clients at least have notice and a hearing on that and then there's a step further and awards missed what again her attorney's fees for a petition for contempt that she never filed her petition should have been dismissed in october when the judge made a finding that my client into making recordings because that's the only thing she ever alleged her petition so we've got two issues we've got the issue of the judge finding my client to be in contempt for something he never could have been it b never could have been in contempt for and we've got the issue of the trial court awarding this one to get attorneys fees for petition that she actually that's true and we missed that in the hearing but first of all as you're i can see from the docket itself misspoken filed this motion four days before the hearing when we're supposed to show up two days after i pair my appearance i moved to continue at that time the trial court denied my motion to unreasonable i understand your honor ok disagrees with me but i believe that given the facts of this case and given the procedural posture and given the history of this case in light of the fact that she filed amended notice of withholding report it was unreasonable for  the last minute four days before the hearing to file this new position for rule to show cause for the judge to not give us an opportunity for not just not give me an opportunity to discuss it with my client or with counsel and then decide well i know you're going to pay the attorneys fees and costs associated or first of all i disagree with coppers to disregard the supreme court so it was before the court i think the difference between counsel myself is that i believe that our courts have the right to protect the courts to protect themselves second i give you courts people versus dos so this is an assault on the court's integrity i believe stuff and  with your like mr wiley and you can misrepresent yourself as an attorney which in most of these counties that have a stash posting they allow attorneys to bring them because they usually don't have to do that so they don't as if they could check everybody could determination that's made on the factual basis of each case so in each of your examples it would depend upon how close you are to the to the case with us disrupting the courthouse where there's like a judge connector just  that content apologized content neutral he's not saying to go on to make a political state he's not going on in saying that you know you have to go tell them the judge just a statement is a good guy but he's not dropping or anything like that what he's saying is you have to go on and tell them i was wrong that you cannot record one that's always the case in the united states jurisprudence supports the court ordering someone to make statements like this well i think that that's it well for one compelled speech i don't believe it's compelled speech error that he did one case in american jurisprudence would support there's a precedent for this order i would think and i'll cite you to the case that i believe  is i think that the court has the right to enforce its orders in remarriage and that's and i believe that people versus dos the supreme court stated our supreme court case of the state of illinois says that the court has a right to enforce and protect its judicial process so he is protecting the judicial process by telling people that wait a minute supreme court rules sixty three prevents this is  our courts prevent this what has happened is an individual gets on and gives a blueprint as to how to get around the court process and to circumvent the process so to protect the court our courts have the right to direct individuals to say to others if you've done this you know i was wrong and that's where i believe we deserve any court that is ever so you know any court order that you can cite or think where any such thing ever be restricted how about the most narrowly tailored means necessary under the circumstance that do so i came up with another means that might do the trick instead of telling people don't talk about but it's not going to correct what has been put out on the system the system that mr what he can chose to use is a social network system where he says i'm encouraging you to violate a supreme court rule not only that but there's this is how you do it and this is what you use and this is how you personally yourself as a officer of the court and this is what it and i go and then he goes on and says i don't care if this causes an issue with the court so after the fact if every court would adopt a policy of this court but just to cite him and this is saying yes if we and creative enough people if he said instead something even more serious that the supreme court ruled against recordings like we have a lot of him from texas but he wanted facebook and said federal government is corrupt they're wasting your money it's time  by the u s attorney and two if it isn't why is this offense putting on facebook about violating supreme court ruled recording of a court room subject to sanctions when my you know where he put it on social media i don't want to i want to make it clear we're even the same media so there's no there's no way i i so you don't think you charge is in essence the same attack on the judicial process that you have here i'm not sure why is the judicial process where the more protection we weak the two years or whatever you want to call us then let's say the really provides here's how you circumvent the iris here's some forms that i've used i encourage you to use these were there and in fact i think we've seen some of this kind of stuff from the district fringe where they say you know i'm just sovereign citizen i don't have to pay taxes and that if you don't pay taxes that's one thing but i'm talking about the advocacy and social media to others and providing examples and advice on how to violate the law you're telling me that offensive supreme court of illinois rule against recording by god we're going to stop it but apparently if it's merely a felony under federal law it's ok now i'm sane and sometimes in the federal law depending on how you do it what you say you may be subject to prosecution and if you incite people to criminal activity someone's going to draw a line somewhere and make  in there this is how you do it and you should stop paying your taxes and you say people do not pay taxes you may possibly open yourself up to that and i apologize i don't i i gave up federal criminal practice thirty five years ago so that's the that's the determining factor are we did in fact going to tell our courts that they have no ability to make sure that their judicial process is not in heated not obstruct it's the courts have to be concerned about what he's going to say if he is in fact inciting people to do that yes and the i believe that the court has the ability to say you correctly take corrective action as in any action  and say you need to stop that if it i don't know if there will be a format to do that unless you are a litigant in a proceeding unless there is some mechanism that you could bring someone forward  seems to me that's a rather high bar it's systematically designed to thwart the judicial process which is what this is well first of all with a dish of process be thwarted if someone were sitting in in a situation where they are placed in a inability to properly administer justice if someone is breaking supreme court rules well we can do it see high in our courthouses and our that placed on facebook which is different and correcting in the future forward as two different methodologies just a judge in our duly would not be able to issue a statewide  or that would require each and every county to institute a system similar to what the court does is that we don't need to do that we can figure out we in the vigil judges can figure