has one of two things if you do it can ignore my jackson and have him restrained and then the basis of the appeal is that my client's continued presence in the courtroom and restraining violated due process i think that's inherent in this argument is you know the hearing by this court to require hearing and suggesting to the court that there is a mechanism for this court to evaluate what happened slater meaning more straightforward argument would be to say the trial court had no board meeting to order that my client continue in restraints i suppose as a more of a tactical few i wouldn't want to stand before this court and say that no judge could order a civil litigation restrain i don't i don't think that's reasonable or realistic so instead it is my research reveals the flows case and several other cases that make it that there was a we certainly will first i would point to the respondents own comments himself when he expressed frustration at being on the road to open his folder he didn't enter the courtroom with a folder and he work who views in their custody to the court room it's their responsibility to make sure that they have first remains in the court room and there is no on toward incident so they're not responding are they if we have but certainly based on their own well it shows what their responsibilities are but by that logic your honor any mental health recipient should expect to be and the guardianship banana because the commissions legal advocacy service has ten attorneys in the state there are a hundred to come i don't know exactly how many counties hold mental health hearings not every county has a psychiatric facility with in it so sometimes peaches are transported to another county for their periods so that tells us that seven hundred in two counties and six of our attorneys aren't cut and leg and will that we are not putting post it notes on the bathroom mirrors of the public defenders of the various counties in illinois i mean i suppose yes maybe there is some other remedy maybe i should you know seeing the rotax saying counsel in these manner to make sure us from bones hearing purchase kentucky that talks about her versus texas excuse me that talks about procedural requirements for civil commitment cases would suggest that some women of assistance is required and so there's shar under strain they're supposed to be hearing while he's under strain and the factors that are set forth in the rule are to be considered either with testimony or other evidence and proceedings i know dick or i should say commentary on alan made it sound like it applied in racine where there was supposedly a liberty interest in law but how do you reconcile this rule write no such well a couple of things first and then you have to look at the overarching purpose of the rule is to require that there be something for it and that's what i've stressed in my brief again and again something similar to something like  criminal trials just because there are similarly do you show criminal trials does not mean that we transfer everything from the criminal context to the context of a civil commitment hearing the council let me just to comment on that if waived by inch you know by not saying i want to hearing on this which we've already discussed and i think you're now saying that that's not necessarily the position you're taking but you would be the judges responsibility to under it looks like under this new statute the new rule it is the judge's responsibility because it says once he recognizes he or she recognizes that there are street he or she must do something would you advocate this here as well i would still be counsel's responsibility to make a request for some sort of hearing i think sat on the the rule does make it clear that it is up to the judge to to make that determination about mr pease request later well first of all i think he wanted to represent himself and then decided he would represent itself what about the concept that he couldn't open this folder and he couldn't you know he may have had some notes that he could not access while the cursory comment after the judge rendered decision which he of course was upset by the finding of involuntary commitment so besides that there was there was nothing else in the record to indicate that he was unable to to restrictive setting especially given the respondents aggressive nature it that this came well after the decision to keep a restraint but from the from the record we can see that the back there was clear convincing evidence that mr that whether or not there should be such a hearing should be a matter for the legislature or as in the case of the new rule of the supreme court to make rule well how are you how do you think the legislature gets notice of these out at the time this trial and yet you're saying that there should be no requirement any here in civil commitments so what do you  out the reasons restraints and maybe had it been fleshed out this cooling stuff would have been made easier because this court could then have to be this is to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in could have been put on the record you did not have to go to the extent of abuse hearing which might be you know allow response or even response the procedural issues that hearings often require and so i guess the allowed to be considered a thing when you were looking at procedural matters and i would imagine that the hearsay rule would be relaxed in that circumstance and i might say judge we don't have any real evidence of baton you know protect the people in its court of the trial judge has that responsibility but the trial judge has a responsibility to the simple mental health litigant as well to do to not send a message to him that he is