record being followed as it was written is that also correct yes or all right and so what wasn't in it and what he believed what mr connerly believed was with some sort of substance abuse treatment correct i would say ultimately that promise is correct however not conditional on it being mr condit the impellers believe but stated in his cause of action that it was the belief of three separate treatment providers or qualified under the appropriate for us and did he ever bring an action within the confines of administrative review to have those people present their evidence so damages were a remedy you seem to agree with there and it sounded to me like what you were saying was that this was in effect the be clear for a judgement where rights are exhaustion isn't required if it's based upon a federal statute correct no that's that's not what i said you're saying if it is required only when it's section eighty three more federal stage however this petition is brought  state law would that be that would supposedly give your remedy that you were seeking other than the mere declaration of right review it's not necessarily asking for anything to be addressed constitutionally anything to be addressed where there is a remedy granted by the or but just review of the kerry  it seems like here green a situation where you're claiming that you have the right to have traditional review to determine if you have a right to file suit under some other stare at you and seek some form of believe that you're not seeking or you're not requesting in this particular proceeding which means it sounds like you're talking about litigation here in of more than two perceives and i was heard if that's what you seem to be a position for judicial review and asking that there's a truck with the reviews whether the a c is upholding its responsibilities of providing adequate care for treatment if it makes a finding that in fact was not that would at least  approximately cause because you haven't said what the trial court hypothetically was going to say if it said that there haven't been and why and now i understand that it's somewhat speculative because there was no hearing but my point is determine where the damages that were privately plus or put another way what were the damages that you were seeking then your honor that if the crowd were had the ability to review and judicial body to invest in their lawyer that that responsibility can then be asked to come into compliance otherwise there's there's no mechanism by which the statute even serves  mcdougal says that a judicial review might be appropriate or is appropriate it doesn't say that it ministry to review is inappropriate and why why if this if he has these three providers the say that he needs this care this treatment why doesn't he go through the grievance process has he ever tried to go through the grievance process for i think the answer to that from this record is now correct yes or no from from the record i would say right so why didn't he why doesn't he i believe that the question before the court doesn't even necessarily the answer why he doesn't any means yes there is he charged with that responsibility  evidence in a deflator tory that these what these three perminder said and why they said it how they said it and what they meant all of those things how exactly can they tell that we now know the record tell the department of corrections you do this or else what's the or else how can how can the judicial branch tell the executive branch if not met needs that there needs to be some sort of judicial review for that and that's settled law that's a law but even if the judicial review comes up with the conclusion that it is not the treatment is not up to par is not appropriate for this detaining doesn't that put it back in the department of corrections  basically and then they have to go through that process so why are we skipping that process in the st place all the trial all the trial court all this power could do if they could do it would be to say it's not adequate what does that mean it means you go through the process there is outstanding and present in the system which the grievance process that may be true will to really run or i can't necessarily deflect the possibility of truth there however what i would say is the question posed is whether the  mine a little more direct my point was we've we have asked you questions that the answer seems circumspect and vague and if there had been administrative review where you were actually talking to the electorate opposing side are opposing party and you had a wage for instance that  the drug abuse program should be provided it's quite possible that the solution or at least a determination of why a solution was not available i would be made a record such that when it comes before us we can then decide whether or not it was here or now at all the questions that i was asking you were asked these the time what is the relief that you're seeking you were very ambiguous way came to delineate specifically what it was if i was the dio see the guardian so to speak if i was an employee of the d o c and i was asked you know those questions i might have some idea of what it is that your complain about and make some suggestions which i can't personally do as a judge but they can't so the point is as justice hutchinson was implying if she didn't say it directly is it's much more efficacious to go through administrative review where you're talking to the person that you're complaining about and see if they can resolve the problem very simplistically instead of having to go to through this he's they can say yeah ok care is not adequate there's still not necessarily a remedy to give even with the exhaustion of the mystery remedies so i don't think we can say well you can bring this petition mr pollock because we can't really  like your position seems to be that we have greater abilities would leave you know even though we don't know what the problem here is whether it's reveal treatment before asking the courts for that treatment mcdougall was decided it was they who were firm the trial court's denial of relief which was a request for a transfer to another institution for two reasons one of them was that he actually dangerous person had never asked the director for that transfer in st instance and so we do will itself recognise the importance of asking to director for the really that this actually dangerous the exhaustion doctrine applies to claims or two motions filed under that act because st the department's regulations require all committed persons to file grievances to explain any problems  not been the forwarded treatment designed to affect his recovery as required under the act that seems to indicate that there is some responsibility to address the department and if the department says no you don't need that then judicial review can happen and it's a totally different circumstances than one that you really think that you're out of the director agrees with that that st piece actually dangerous person should circumstances there is very the very st thing that happens is a grievance off st there's an informal process where grievance counselor discusses the issues with the grieving party then if that doesn't resolve the issue there's a grievance is it more likely to go to a hearing if the request is denied or could it go to a hearing in any case what the video hearing would take place before the requests tonight so this is a matter could then seek review from the administrative review board which is appointed by the director and the director alternately decides whether to adopt the recommendation of that review board or  within six months of getting the appeal from this actually dangerous person to take some other action so there are really finding this presented or written findings put in the record that a court could review yet that what would make a final decision within six months in writing so that's all of the grieving process is reviewable by the boards and more importantly it gives the director as the agency being provided that these three providers there mr conley has referenced are they part of the department of corrections staff or are they independent prior to time that the facts are collected in two months and then the media looks at it and then the director has six months where we're close to a year maybe even be out here in line at the fact that i think there are one hundred and fifty dollars plus person detained under this act doesn't it isn't it more efficient to go directly to this type of litigation asking for the review before the administration or the administrative review it would be more efficient if courts have all at their disposal they need to make decisions of the committee in court had a record to decide in all circumstances whether or not an additional treatment is necessary then perhaps it would be more efficient but the statute is intended to grant discretion to the director to make this treatment decisions and the way to do that is the greens process and so really here what we're we're directors arguing is that the committing corner should not be in a position  fashioning treatment that's the director's responsibility media takes a little long for the record you do that but inform decision making sometimes takes a little longer and in the process of treating sexual interest persons a process that requires changing attitudes and behaviors  treatment require treatment does he time it's not something that happens immediately unfortunately well it's not like just how many just not there he's been quite some time right any rd ventured times where he's sought discharge and been denied that because he's not participating in treatment effectively he's not mean past the initial phases that require into knowledge the reasons why he's been committed and be able to deal with his in thoughts and so that's sometimes it does take longer but since twenty that special interest persons are are discharged from the program upon completion if he sees because he's argument seems to be  who think based upon my guess st i need this treatment so why doesn't that trigger some sort of immediate request within the system well there are discussions of current group therapy substance abuse treatment would be required for my progress in treatment and recovery well that may be true at some point in the treatment process general risk factors such as substance abuse might be discussed it and no problems with substance abuse are present but here we don't even see that connally has admitted that he has a substance in these he is just said that people said that include therapy again the treatment plan is where goals are set and he hasn't said anything in his motion about his treatment that there needs to be some sort of assertion that i have made it as far as i can get in treatment i've been purchase a painting but yet additional treatment is not available to me for some particular reason or i've been denied release for some reason beyond my control and here calmly hasn't said that he's completed those initial pieces of treatment that required him to acknowledge his past behaviors and thoughts and it's the record is replete with instances in which he is denying those offens despite pleading guilty to possessing child pornography and other issues that he needs to in treatment discuss again this mo this is this action is a motion in the committing for all of the record on appeal is deny that he had progressed in treatment past those initial phases and gotten to the point where general risk factors such as substance abuse would be addressed it may be true that eventually substance abuse should be addressed with mr townly however he what would be if this was an appropriate action what does the state believe should be alleged in order to state a cause well it depends on the case your honor because this is a motion asking for effectively an injunction  i agree that he needs to provide some factual assertions that he has complied with the terms of the commitment order and his treatment rather and that the director has not complied with the terms of treatment in order to get review of the treatment but but more than just that because then everyone can get review the treatment just by broadly asserting that they have complied with directors not what what connally and other such a dangerous persons need to be certain is they need to treatment to this point and i have i've done these things in treatment and provided the community work and not to be able to determine that proceedings should move on past this mission otherwise mission she sounds like you're saying that he has to watch evidence i see who you're calling to the standard not to testify for these assertions you put forth in your petition i deny your motion i don't find that your argument has merit he could have made that decision there however he was premature in dismissing the petition which is the entire question before the court he will even if it was properly planned and since i have some knowledge of kasman i might think it is if it was properly planted the hearing on this motion is still not going to provide a trial or or this work with all that's necessary to tell the director that their plan doesn't work because we don't know what the plan is in the beginning we don't know how it was formulated in the beginning we know as a matter of record the charter that was posed against him and then a decision was made rather than pursue the charge to pursue this is a remedy so we still don't have the information we need that could be provided by and it need a street of review and  stricken they could have been tonight and park however prematurely dismissing the petition without letting it go to hearing to make that decision after evidence was shown is where the trial court and i would ask on that basis that the trial court's decision