and counsel your honor write your honors i would like to use my time this morning to really focus on the first issue in our preferred which is this is prior to this hearing ok and because so little time had passed between their filing i was not able to to investigate what if anything i need to be able to do so force at that  have elevations that pertain to some new things that you know and again logistically pine is in custody scott county like a number of the reasons that the treasuries with respect to the over overgrowth issue these subpoenas sought materials there were created over a period of time less than four months so your honour's that said from february twenty second two thousand and seventeen to present served on june fourteenth two thousand that is not a long period of time it's records pertaining to supervision of my client in that less than four month period time and cor between the supervising agent and the treatment provider and at less than four month period of time i was pretty narrow and not and in any way on reason burdensome and again the the yes for yes all the records but between this very small amount of time and as a record the count or record reflects this case had a history of amended in supplemental petitions and if that happened the previous time and  fundamentally judge the court was aware from the previous proceedings that the that there is a log created by for a wage and on a mess log reflecting their actions we've whenever the respondent calls fact that this is that these are part of the materials that are always in a role for the mission and you point that out i cannot recall if i said at that at the time of that argument that this log was obviously something the it was a relatively brief argument and the court made decisions on it on that issue would be fair to say that the short judge again our response well again the d are written response from the state's arguments for that the fact that we are not entitled to rule these discovery does not mean that we cannot  state arguments had to do with the with whether we could issue the subpoena at all and those that was the argument that we were responding to both in writing and orally the morning of the hearing the judge's ruling drawing was on the basis of it was being overly broad that's not a point that i've been given the opportunity to respond to because it's not the argument that the state was make did you make an  at that time given that the the basis that the pro court resented which was that it was a certainly we did not perceive it as a fishing expedition in a way for the reasons that i just write in terms of how we had here to it was unclear i think she she was how we could more again we at the f b i in the day of the hearing we've got order revoking respondent conditional relieves the trial court concluded among other things that respondent also violated paragraph sixteen of the order for his conditional release by entering its mission sounds about  contrary to the arguments that he makes and in spree and exclude the contrary to the arguments that he makes in the oral argument and i think that the language of the subpoena reflects that that intent that he is seeking a copy of all of and all records pertaining to the supervision of james steve howe and any and all correspondence between yourself and sarah brown oils is not tailored in the way that respondent argues that it is in that those protections are sufficient to protect respondents due process rights and and that those protections comply with the united states supreme court's decision in going on so because respondent can point to no constitutional statutory or common law requests finally the trial court's conclusions that respond then one failed to comply with treatment and to possess an internet capable device for not against the manifest weight of the evidence response entire argument with respect to his treatment rests on dr carey shows willingness to treat him however this argument completely ignores the fact the us unsuccessfully discharged from his treatment with brown boils because he failed to attend sessions on several occasions and when he did attend he monopolized the sessions displayed to see people in distress behavior he excuse me interfered with others participation in group therapy and ultimately walked out of the last  required him to comply with treatment dr parishes subsequent willingness to treat him is irrelevant because he had already been unsuccessfully discharged and therefore was already non compliant with the order and finally with respect to the internet capable device allegation in the trial court received evidence that respondent had sent several text messages including picture messages and had sent several e mails to his boss all of us were written in the first person and some were signed by or j h which our respondents initials additionally upon execution of a search warrant several saw from chargers and i phone ear buds were recovered from respondents residence and so taking this evidence together the trial court's decision the respondent more likely than not possess an internet capable device i was not against them in spite of the evidence such that the opposite conclusion was clearly evident for these reasons respondents substantive arguments lack merit however as i noted at the outset my point asking the question is judge smith didn't seem to accept the state's position and seemed to find to this course and clear the record that mr big subpoena was overbroad  necessary and that is illustrated by the case cited by defendant the canon case so even though they do not have the right to the trial court so has the discretion to allow discovery and then can apply the typical subpoena materials when out of the chain a thing helpful relevant to that is that we said without a real basis because of course we don't have the spin materials in the record because we don't have them  overbroad and quashed on that basis your honor at that time i did not attempt to offer further argument about why it was not overbroad  court moved on to the next issue and the agenda that day so i mean it be i don't and perhaps if the record reveals my memory is wrong it does my recollection is that the pro or did not ask me about familiarity with the standards of the court seemed to take the issue away from the state didn't accept the state's position that there you have an inability at that point to issue the subpoena and the core indicates that to have considered the true that we don't know what exactly is going to be in those records although again from fire regimes in the same case has some idea but at the same time that's not it is a very extremely are issued to ask for a category of records will break a period of time and the reason for that is that the party issuing the three that does not know what the party in possession of the records has exactly that's that's fundamentally the case whenever