handled yet whether somebody is found to be no risk by a preponderance of evidence or found to be no risk by some other standard whether it's beyond reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence that the facts matter is if if we require if the it is not your contention is it that the legislature with a neck of the statute in the words of no risk meant no risk whatsoever is it your position if there's a problem with the legislation itself yes ok well your we correct interpretation of the statute where where it says somebody must be found to be no risk cannot produce anything other than an absurd one just result under the facts presented to the trial court here we have a minor in this case who was so successful in his course of treatment that at the end of his treatment he was going between three to four months between counseling sessions we had a minor one was working we had testimony and evidence of good character and under section deep and section even setting forth the the factors to be considered essentially will we have is a miner who at one point made a bad decision and when confronted conventions and this expert was a social scientist and so when you talk about what his opinion is his opinion is not something that can be carved in stone it  is based upon trends but it is not based upon the fact that it took more from wrong motion we theoretically or i should say theoretically statistically we were all suffocate because sooner or later all the oxygen in the room the circumstances greater weight than his rather strange decision this was the lowest you can go with low risk but how does this relate to how the statute is interpreted the statute has criteria and based if we don't believe the testimony and if we put ourselves in the position of the truck or to say we didn't we don't trust we don't believe that opinion then we will we can dispense with number one because if if if if i something about this is absurd and your argument struck me as being t'other way of saying this is against the manifest weight of the evidence yes based on based on the factor construction that can be understood on its face in the reason for that is because every person presents some risk of some sort now if we go back to the standard of proof we survive on it's the evidence we call we will and and to say that the court was looking for a reason to deny the petition may be too strong but it was certainly the only evidence that the court had at the miter did anything other than there no it's our position that no rational trier of fact could have reviewed the record the way this record was reviewed in order to deny the titian based on the limited information and if i may in fact to be that negative evidence that the court did hear in this part of the record in fact tends to indicate that the minor did learn from the counseling that he received own i guess a national question here and from what you are speaking about i think we're having trouble it's different language from different professionals we have a social science language where they were the expert comes in and said well we don't go no we go low risk and that's all we do well that's not the legal standard the legal standard which is in the statute is we want to out in relation to the probability that he might in the future act out in a sexually deviant way he said it was low risk as low as he could say that we're looking to do is alluding to what's the nexus of the connection determination well to the extent that there is an equation between a sex offense and stealing a hard drive in a mouse from a school where one attends then we're going back we're going to make the no risk we're not again we're we're holding we're holding this minor to an impossible standard based on the evidence before the court he was a teenager saying that the theft of the mouse is not contained within the criteria the statutes of dull i think the weight that it's being given under these circumstances with the mountain of evidence suggesting the minors removal from the registry i think is being  teenagers are going to be bad decisions it is not that we that any of us hold teenagers to a standard of never making bad decisions it's how travel is trained in how the child response to a bad situation and in this case the risk on a minor responded truthfully he responded honestly and in fact he offered a piece of evidence that not been discovered as he had been stolen he was contrite and he was applying the skills that