the same case by the defendant and i believe filed on february three two thousand and fourteen and it was entitle defendant's own own pleading amended affidavit in support of the most involuntary and actually essentially giving up for the court a copy of the response and documents that it provided to us around and one of the reasons that mr perkins wanted to introduce these two pieces of evidence on one of them a two which was actually a pleading the fifth filed back a's so it was a party admission it was sent to the same thing by house and it was their own document that they filed and especially the party admission was that received documents back from three different class he didn't receive anything back directly from the venue which is how it should happen and that on its own it should have told the trial for less than the defendants have these documents i don't know what kind of games they're playing they're using the wrong person to send out response of documents out there sending them to the wrong people they're giving everyone the run around and mr craft is not i mean he's just an ordinary citizen who's trying to get government documentation from different places we have no knowledge of that and for all anyone knew he could have had us working on a particular case for him and and you know it could have been a breach of privacy that you know the defendant is spending documentation to us now we know higher office for it and forced us to be in communication with him on it and who's to say i mean just because we're representing him on a different boy or class or other boy requests doesn't mean that he i mean he had hired our office so essentially w creating for no good reason creating work for a separate entity to communicate with the requester on something that they hadn't agreed to do in the first place and like i said our office didn't even know i mean rocks didn't even know that mr pratt had been sending those requests until we received the response so i mean where's the line who's to say maybe we represent him on another matter maybe to represent him on a civil matter maybe time to take it to trial court then he hired our office for the other forty eight and so we didn't even represent we didn't represent him when he was provided when he was then in the original class of the other cases in the first place so there's no reason to think that we need to represent him simply honorable quest we are only representing him as it pertains to going to trial or not as it pertains to sending email or sending a lighter and providing response and documentation back that well and to be fair if it might not have been a mistake it might have been something where they were trying to utilize you know send it somewhere else take a longer time to respond and give them the runaround maybe they were getting fed up with maybe maybe they didn't want him to continue to send for your class and which is the right of you know all citizens they should be able to send for a request and easily efficiently and simply receive the response back and so if they're wanting to send it somewhere else and do something else then maybe they're trying to deter him from sending point requests liron which would be against  for her to come here and argue to this court about what exhibit treat contained in this case and how effective this case is totally inappropriate there is no record there is no exhibit three this court has ruled that h should have affected the trial judge's decision with respect to the last issue i'll take that first if the freedom of information act requires that  as counsel says in her reply brief that it's not about whether or not the request was received by the person recall receiving the quest it's about whether or not to request a sample directly was offered in this case with zip zero none whatsoever he did make an argument to the court but that's not have and whether and and he did not argue to the court that he did not receive the responses to the freedom  mation act on the last three cases that were that were dealt with separately in fact that the only issue involved there was pleadings whether or not the ladi entitle to the information from under the freedom of information act there there is no evidence in this record that he did not receive it or that he did not receive it in a timely manner in fact the inference is that he did receive so what we're explanation that was given was that it wasn't sent to him it was simply her and stated that he did receive their patients and i don't believe that the freedom of information act really has focused on the issue of whether or not something is sent to the individual but whether or not the individual receives that let's look at this the information was sent to mr berg no dispute about that if she didn't want him to her she could have responded  letter and said hey you sent this information to me but i don't represent mr kraft in this case so please send it to him directly the reason why i was sent him was a concern as just pointed out the brief about the canons of ethics and have  communication with an individual who is represented by counsel in a case that you're working on some of the said safest avenue there is the sandy information to his lawyer and i think any lawyer that received it there would either sin that onto mr kraft which apparently she did i don't know parents she did or to send it back to the sender and say look i don't represent this gentleman and i'm going to send the last three requests the issue is did he in my view is did he receive it and i think that but the issue to be addressed by the judge was i got these pleadings here  didn't offer me any evidence you didn't get on the stand and say i didn't receive it or it wasn't sent to your lawyer and she didn't send it to me all he had to do was simply take the stand and give a short two minute testimony about what happened he did that he received it he just deny that it was it was sent in accordance with the creator of the information that's all he you know so if he received it what remedy is he going to get he's already got way is there  he didn't have a lawyer he's not going to get any legal fees it doesn't seem like we're here but it's a tempest in a teapot and my view is that this is this is compliance with the act by sending it to his lawyer who apparently then soon now with respect to the first issue in this case counsel talks about the freedom of information requests and she said it was because it fails to show some things that were requested first of all we have these two exhibits one two three zero out if it wasn't it's not part of the record that we not sure but it's a big copy this copy is attached to this affidavit and everything that i say it is attached there and i sent all we had and then counsel tries to argue that somehow or the other  exhibit three shows that they they didn't say they learn his nose exhibit the records and that argument is improper and shouldn't be made here in this court but if we see says one of the things that they feel the sand was a complete compensation number to complete compensation package for trustee is that a request for a document is that iraq into or is it is that something that is maintained well the answer in this record is number seven is a copy number six is a copy number five is a list of all of the employees and their complete compensation package dana shield again said i send everything we got maybe they didn't have a list or maybe they didn't have a complete compensation then they have a duty to send out with respect to this case counsel first argued just about the burden of proof and then in a reply brief it was indicated that the actually the burden of proof and then the standard of proof for that decision the standard of review i'm sorry is whether or not the trial court abused his or her discretion in the case in this case what judge roche was confronted with was judicial notice of number two and and number two was number was number one number two was identical to number one except it had the affidavit deem exhibit number one was in fact a copy of the response to requests for reduction of what did he say he said i don't know i can't identify it unless i got the original right here beside this one and i don't know where the original one is did not leave it in my office that i got over there this is a man that came to court ready for trial and he can identify the document that he wants to introduce into judge broach was entirely within his rights and in fact but in fact he did not abuses this creation in denying the introduction of that exhibit because of the foundational law but our argument follows down that it doesn't make any difference whether the exhibits were looked at or not looked at the judge to the judicial notice of the response and he decided after hearing all this evidence before witnesses that in fact that the by a preponderance of the evidence and counsel has not shown in any way shape or form this court should substitute its judgment for the judgment of the trial court because he a brute abused his discretion compensation package she had her on on the stand she could have said we don't have a she mind said we don't have a complete compensation package for all the trustees we don't have any such document or she might have said we do have it but she didn't ask her the question and there was no offer proof in this case to to give this core an idea of what was coming down the road and i will say to the court counsel didn't say judge roach there's no so i think whenever we look at this case we have to conclude that as far as judge growth was concerned he was confronted with a situation where he had one document he had one witness who said we gave him everything that we had the initial in the affidavit which he took judicial notice of and we didn't have mr kraft on the stand and testify about that the only thing he took the stand about was whether or not the document that was marked as exhibit one was in fact the a copy of the original document he said i can't say i just can't tell don't know where the plane so i think whenever you look at th and that's the test in this case it's not generally it would would we made it this different decision it's did he use abused his discretion because when you look at it there's no indicate the indication thing was the lead now counsel talks about  devious methods and trying to trick mr crap and she talks about this exhibit number three which is not before the court but exhibit number three came from a separate request under the freedom of information act that mr kraft sent sixteen days or so before or that for the trial in this case so that there was a there's nothing anything devious about sending so i'm i'm confused about where the harm was in this case whether the freedom of information act requires that or not so we would suggest to the court that the trial judge was entirely  just because she says that we gave everything that we have doesn't mean that's correct in the trial court would take that on its face the documentation was in exhibit two shows that for example i believe it was it to go out of town to go to their attorney and then come back to them where they live in another town they should be able to within a reasonable amount of time usually have access to the patient and i stand by my by my statement that there is a possibility that the defendant is