case in august of two thousand and i here before the incident here mr copperhead entered into an agreed settlement order in which he was enjoying from any contact with any of the other defendants in the case and any known latin king antonio delegate deal about a month earlier and he was in the presence of other gang members but there was he didn't remember what the context was for there was no description of any game related activity or game colors or anything like that honor to order it was entitle a memorandum of decision and it is it is part of the record and is in the order of judge dorothy summarizes the evidence that she heard at the civil proceedings and that half what happens when you look at the internal database that they have been using what what significance does that play in this particular is that  that game database was admissible here which are very close to really our second issue that we you know we contend it wasn't admissible but let's say we accept that it is officer sworn had testified that she just knew mr del the deal was listed in the database and then she testified that a person could remain in their database been definitely even if they were no longer a gay member and in this case in particular if you have an order for ones earlier were judged  stop being a gay member so presumably four months later i was the state brings in evidence at this criminal trial to show where you know he finally did it or and now we know that he she still is a gay member of the state is required to xo that was actually a companion street gang member and they also have to the other essential element is to prove that the lead teams are street gang and they produce no evidence to plan the earlier when he suddenly deal with street gang members how did he testify how he knew the street gang members now there were no details at all in fact he said he couldn't remember what the contact w that he put information about the deal into it and i know the state has argued dead on well this was just used for the course of investigation or yet investigation purposes but actually effecting a gay member was well i know he's listed in the game da the you know the objection is is a little is here in this record because defense counsel objected first to on the web and officers from kind testified about his prior so the judge didn't explicitly stating exactly what portion he was relying on but further on the record he did state the specific reasons as to why he found each element of the crank proven beyond a reasonable  foundation without any basis but he didn't that was not in the record yeah that was not presented in the record so there was that and mr daley deal also to testify at trial and he did say that he had never what was the specific finding in order it wasn't based upon the evidence i believe beyond reasonable doubt it's based upon the evidence is probably more likely that isn't there's a brief to pieces and which i believe is this court found that it is improper to take judicial notice of testimony because that would constitute hearsay because it presents confrontation issues however the people who accept it that never quit because the people did not attempt to introduce the actual testimony of the officers to this memory and no we would argue that it's not hearsay again i don't think it makes a difference whether it's an expert or a great person testifying at the civil proceeding but because the people did not attempt to introduce the actual testimony but just the again the people think there's a distinction between taking judicial notice of the testimony in a prior proceeding which is improper and taking judicial notice of findings that were based and those findings were by a preponderance  part of this issue don as you were having that conversation with justice jorgensen i don't believe so because that would still be a confrontation issue if the people had actually tried to present testimony and attempted to admit actual testimony from a prior proceeding and the people see how that's problematic but here it was a judicially noticed memorandum to which defense counsel did not object to see you know you know is it didn't take traditional notice notice of everything in the memorandum and there is one part in the defense brief where or in the reply brief where to send it to addressed is the heart of the counsel argued yes because of the different burden of proof and how did the state respond to all the people submit that because of the rest of the findings that our our client in the memorandum what with other gang members while it wasn't specific as to which game and be exact nature of the contact i think that testimony could contribute to the proof that the people offered did he you're part of the land team that did go against the finding civil order which i understand is a different burden of proof however he did testify at a criminal proceeding and i think credibility comes into play and that's where the trier of fact and whatever sprang from a by jury were only a basic part of the condors of the added a standard and that testimony clearly was more in depth than what we had this trial the state would have to at the very least present the evidence again and probably more so to prove that on the day that i was twenty second the individual is a street gang member and the motion for a new trial he again referred to the judge jury's finding and said that was because i'm quite a bit of testimony and everything else in the stipulating that the witness's testimony from the civil court trial constituted proof beyond a reasonable doubt at the criminal trial i would say it that was what he had agreed to then the defendant has to be admired and agree findings if you look at their argument in their brief and the reasonable doubt you will see that most of the evidence they rely add to the argued that the crew mr delegate mr will have the skills and in this criminal