what i think is an important distinction in this case this is from kevin f at two sixty four well the whole interior mission procedures can proceed substantially liberty interests these interests must be balanced against the  objectives of involuntary missions to provide care for those who are unable to care for can selves and to protect society from the dangerously mentally hill societies interest in providing treatment to the mentally ill by protecting its citizens from harm procedures in involuntary commitment proceedings is required or reversal is not required unless the respondent is in some way prejudice might appear later to comply with them statutory requirements in that case the court found that this purpose was not in the object particular objection that the court ruled on until the motion to reconsider the specific specificity of that section right but clearly there are what is mentioned no notice to the alone defense counsel's motion to dismiss could be interpreted as a written request you know either way again we have an active rather than in the lack of notice although i'm not willing to concede that there a little boy than just a little defect in the notice i think they're aware of the hearing if they have a desire for more information certainly they can contact and request more information should they have to do well part of the problem is and this goes to the whole forfeiture order notice and defective first is lack no one cited the statute which says you that they're not required to send a copy of well they need to change that they weren't required to send a copy of the petition and no one cited three days six zero nine which had the petition language so guardian and they said it wasn't heartless in that case because some of the factors were relied upon the trial court to find the person subject to involuntary admission related to the guardian statutory duties  here the council does not have the close personal statutory duty to the respondent that they are their personally pointed guardian would assume that a significant distinction it i think you know martin is a very clear case there is not the prejudice in this case that there was in the martin case i've never seen a council appear in  if she received a full hearing on the merits of the petition where's the prejudice i don't see any y what happened here of the arguments were not presented to the trial judge pretrial so that he could have he moved correctly on the law that was provided to him and then it is not until the motion to reconsider that it's too late for any curing of the defects that he finds that there was a problem with the notice so we do know it's piecemeal litigation which should not be encouraged in this case with a motion to reconsider when the trial judge is not reconsidering what he ruled on he's has additional new arguments that were never presented in the trial court and couldn't have been fixed earth could so is that who was originally involved with this appeal and could not come today so although i am the voice speaking today on this christmas he has been on half the preparation in getting ready for this or argument and i also at the first hearing where we have a transcript in this case july twenty fifth the trial court judge said to the parties well i can't order anybody to  notified if the state has that information and i don't know why they wouldn't just do it to eliminate this issue but if they don't do it and you speaking to the public defender want to bring a motion that's a motion you can bring so this was the judge at the july twenty fifth hearing and this was when both the commitment and the medication cases were called regular individual before you i think where the person with the recipient but the respondent is asking for that to happen then yes i think the state has the burden to do that i think that's so then it's totally within the state's control and i would i would say that people who are for the capable repetition exception is not going to apply here because we have the two elements there we have the short duration so this is about the state's failure to give notice a if we look at the public interest exception if we look at the public interest exception to move this in our grief we said well yes this is a statutory issue so granted it is an issue of a public nature but let's look at the other two elements of the public interest exception to moving us is there really for guidance when we already have the margins of case that this under three six zero nine is required and that's the state's burden to make sure that that's done and that the record shows that notice is given we also have the leslie h case that says no this must be given it's to anyone that's something that the state can control by giving notice personally with the plain language of the statute and pursuant to the case law that already existing do they give notice exception oh but if this chord does feel that this exception applies and does wish to provide some guidance we would ask the court to say that in this particular case there was no abuse of discretion here in what the trial for it did from the very beginning of the trial court was looking for a mental health code provision to say is no use for a choir here and the issue never changed the issue was about a notice to the consulate that was requested by the respond it was simply the authority that changed and it was never forfeited it was raised to the trial it was raised on july seventh on july eighteenth on july twenty fifth on august first the issue  not a matter of somebody who did not raise the issue and then raised it for the first time on appeal this is somebody who was raising it at every point along the way because what notified eventually they were  the consulate was notified on august first with the faxed notice of hearing but without the petitions if they show up did they reach out to anybody did they find out what's going on in this case anything well no not that the record shows us but at i think cursory information they did not get any information about the basis for the petitions they did not get information about who the family members  were on the petition they did not know who the petitioners were they did not know who the council of them i don't know because they did not get the information they were provided however   granting her motion to reconsider the the trial court found that the notice was  i can't even begin to tell you what that prejudice is because i don't know what i do not know what the consulate may have done if i have complete notice is it isn't that the whole point to work in it's just chasing them to the dark here isn't the whole i know that there was a least a request for him to patent examiner i know that the stupid illinois doesn't have money for that could her consulate have gotten funds to pay for an independent examiner for her that's a possibility the independent exam motion didn't go anywhere and maybe part of that was because the city don't know it doesn't have funding for it i think there are many things that the consulate may have been able to  do i don't know if you're ready to this speculation at this point but was the trial court's decision arbitrary fancy fool over a decision that no reasonable person would have made under the circumstances based verse correct and i can't remember them lies only in specific i think they issue here is not really whether it's one or two people that thursday but i don't tell you about which case i do think there's any prejudice to the state in that circumstance i think so what facetious it's difficult and that's my point you send it date time without any indication of what  council and in fact you know it also goes to the prejudice argument which you know there's no showing that's entirely speculative let me ask you this though i mean we've been around the block and i get your position is there's no prejudice how do we find that the trial court fighting that there was is fanciful because remember the standard here is due to trial work abuse its discretion in finding that you know repeatedly i heard about the consulate repeated me the state knew about it and you didn't send the proper notice i find it's prejudicial and reverses how do we sit in judgment of that and find that it's aware of what's going on and is opposing so pointed out you know when and if something happens they would do it correctly nature but in this case i think the work does have some opportunity to voice its opinion on the harmless error in my distinction between the absence of notice and deficient notice and alone that is perhaps