this matter started with a pro forma petition that failed to state a cause of action followed by the trial court questioning someone other than courtesy to determine whether curtis could make a legal decision about his right to waive counsel i would suggest that the straightforward issue here is the failure to state a cause of action in the detention because there are no facts alleged to support a cause of action cannot question someone other than the respondent for this purpose the right to counsel and an involuntary not the whole proceeding is the respondents right so hear that right along to courtesy and he must be question because only he could waive that right the doctor can't waive that right what's important to this issue also is that the illinois supreme court recognizes that even recipients of mental health services and respondents and mental health proceedings are presumed competent to make decisions about their own legal affairs the respondent is not represented by counsel unless after conferring with counsel the respondent request to represent himself and the court is satisfied that the respondent has the capacity to waive that right to c the case law interpreting the section are dealing with this issue provides that at the very least the trial court should ask a few questions of the respondent to determine whether he has the capacity to waive counsel and here are some examples of those those few questions that do you have a basic understanding of what the hearing is about do you have a basic understanding of the role of counsel do you have an respondent can answer those questions correctly then the case law and the case that the person has the capacity to create their legal right to counsel and this is not about legal ability this is not about how the respondent can do and record representing himself but does the respondent have that understanding now also provides that if there is no indication and the record that the respondent had the capacity to make this legal decision that's another point in the respon to make that into session then the trial court was wrong to not allow the person to waken so i'm sorry about all these double negatives but i hope in this particular case curtis's conduct at the hearing points to the conclusion that he did have the capacity to make legal decisions for himself and i would ask the court to whether essentially whether the order could be stayed pending an appeal and what would happen if he refused medication while there was that appeal pending would he be restrained and i think the words he used were well i'd be taken down and and have medication forced on me  and then after after that exchange on that same day curtis handwrote his own notice of appeal and file that by mail and that's included in the in the record and additional points that that go to curtis is capacity to make a legal decision for himself are these there was no ongoing relationship between  particular trial judge some of the cases provide that if a person is returning for maybe a petition for discharge after they had been previously found subject to involuntary commitment the trial judge already has a relationship with that person and would have some knowledge of their ability in the past and to need to leave a decision here we didn't have any kind of existing relationship between the the court and courtesy and seeing with the doctor who was question here the doctor he gave his general opinion that the respondent didn't understand what was going on on but there was no ongoing relationship between curtis and that doctor who testified additionally there was no disruption at trial on the case the cases on this are this issue also note that when that there is no disruption a trial that also shows that the person is behaving appropriately and has some understanding of what's going on in court and of course as i said before he asked those those who had and pertinent questions about how to go about appealing that the trial court's decision on even if there are circumstances where somebody else will be asked to testify about our respondents capacity to waive counsel the second that the respondents testimony or the respondents answers to the court's questions here the state did not even ask the right questions i would like to turn to well just the capacity issue briefly the respondent here was treated by the hospital as a person with capacity the hospital accepted his consent to voluntary admission that respondent according to the record he had signed but what we nickname a five day of request of obama patient for discharge and it's referred to as a five day request because then the hospital has five business days to be there just charge the person or file a petition for involuntary commitment if they meet criteria so i'm he was admitted doesn't voluntary we also have other evidence of his capacity he had insight into his illness and explaining his diagnosis and i know that he was not  what the the trial court said that he was articulate but reading his testimony you you have to realize that this is maybe a person who is nervous about being in court and he was talking about the difference between a been diagnosed with over the years and then once that he talked about the medication intake and explained that he was on certain medications at certain points in time and explained that he was no longer on medications because the doctor stopped his medication so this is somebody who was working with a doctor he said i'm no longer taking these medications i was stopped on those medications and at one point in the records not mentioned that it felt good to be off the medication so this is somebody who had insight into his illness and diagnosis was able to talk about the medications he'd been on why they had stock how he f out and there were no questions whatsoever about that final israel factor which is the interfering happen logical beliefs or emotional states so the doctor wasn't even asked a question to involuntary not to hard court proceedings and this more nonchalant manner so on behalf of courtesy for asking this court traverse the trial courts and voluntary medication or hear on one or more of the issues raised thank you know completely and totally has no idea what's going on but the point is does he have the capacity to understand counsels role does he have the capacity to think you make an informed decision situation ok you're kind of asking individual whether or not he's competent enough to know whether or not he wants their counsel without knowing anything about him and i think  doesn't really truly understand what's going on doesn't understand and i don't take issue with a while but counsel said about his ability to understand what was going on with him in his explanations which basically lost everything he said was extremely superficial this hearing sort of asking him to do some additional quest be made whether or not you're competent to waive counsel and whether he can represent himself is can you have that determination without ever asking one question to the response is that ok can you just ask