contend that in this case that writing to a court and continuing to use confidential information which a court has prohibited the use of  thing is that no i have yet to find an automatic in the legal system there is no such thing the question only in this case this was was that a sufficient basis for or in direct criminal dead be after hearing and evidence could be a basis to defeat a petition for him in direct criminal contempt but that's not what happened they th basis to dismiss the petitions no doubt about it we came back with and it's on the record that the lawyer for windy city mr powell this last touched the order on  on the draft order that's what was presented to the court about the river i guess that was the accusation that there had been some kind of miscon it that if you look at this record that was the only evidence on the issue now that the problem in this case is now that that's not a defense it's i don't think it is if it is they didn't present confusing or they want to confuse it this is not a criminal case where we've had the benefit of a grand jury and subpoenas an investigation this criminal case starts the day it's  seven u s b ports two electronic devices took confidential information they returned eleven of those for seven critical time period there were one hundred seventy wrong uses of confidential information so if the issue is did they know what was being charged they sure did they knew where the river was and they knew what we said they did wrong bets were due process requires now of all of the use but we allege where they did and we gave them more information in the responsibility to take you know if they knew exactly where the case was about what happened here w difficult it makes the civil police more angry it doesn't matter sorry you can't stand a pretty content case because it's inconvenient the issue before that the molasses should have been punished or should be punished for something that occurred before the order was entered that's up for a change that came up after the motion to dismiss was filed and i thought i could great as well as that and the circuit court correctly how then this case that the petition was mostly short it punishes or seeks to punish conduct that is retroactive paragraph twelve talks about dates from february fourteenth arrests in order to bring a charge there should be sufficient evidence and naturally laid out in the complaint you don't get to bring a charge and then enter the discovery process to fill in the blanks that's why things are investigated before hand so i respect that really that information should have been included in the petition and the fact that it gives it the lack of specificity is one of the reasons that the circuit fails in several other respects there's actually no allegation that they did anything willfully which is a mens rea requirement it doesn't indicate that they were served with a petition i think that's synonymous with violations of workers or protection and those types of hearing amended to include other facts that could have been done here and it wasn't but the bill of particulars that doesn't help fill in the blanks here because the information that had personal information on the computer she had e mail she had family fellows when you're seeking a petition for contempt you have to be specific as to what the confidential information is everything on the computer is not confidential so it was  on the fact that a punishes conduct retroactively of which everyone was already on notice for the trial quote properly dismissed this and we respectfully ask that you apply the will be applied and if it's applied then the right decision will be made that's all you can ask for and the power here in the appellate court to reverse a judge who doesn't hold somebody in contempt is found you have chaos it's up to the judge to enforce orders i respect the fact that judges have the inherent right to modify orders to control their crew to control their jacket to