fifteen before i get too involved in either of the two issues that i have raised i want to point out something about the police break and apple is not required by law statement of facts but in this case the athlete has chosen to do so i take no issue with that of course i'm welcoming however the entire first page of the statement of facts contains no citation to the record is not in compliance with the supreme court rule the reason that there is no citation to the record is because none of the facts in his first  appeal was filed the order was still in effect i understood at the time that it was quite likely we would not finish this deal before the order expired however since then and has been extended by the trial court it is not part of the record so i couldn't like supplement that's my position because it has happened subsequent to the notice of appealing but that is my understanding and i believe it is in effect at this time if i am wrong about that i certainly would like to be corrected but i do know that it has been extended at least one involved i have raised two issues in this petition in this appeal the first one is that the petition was not approved by a runner upon roots of the evidence and therefore the order should not have been entered but i would like to focus first on the second issue that i raised and that is on the trial court's errors that occurred during the hearing on the plane during the the first year of the trial court man was that a plethora just so much evidence was presented and allowed to be presented regarding our additions that were not a part of the petition there are i think seven eight nine allegations of the actual petition for the no contact order or ye any testimony about that the third allegation is on august fourth my finance and his friend appeared at mr his office office demanded to see him was loud and curse shortly after this he was charged with stalking based on that act and ultimately entered a plea to attempt based on that i would well i would like to argue that that is not necessarily and that could after he was present checking out shopping my client was also shopping the allegation in the petition is not consistent with what mr look past his testimony was a trial but the essential guts of the secretary but that is not the same he did it it was not me but it was no contact with him it wasn't a threat about but it certainly it can can it can be put a third party absolutely an argument is that purchasing a gift of kleenex for someone even if you did it because you're a smart alec is not an act of intimidation it's not an act harassment it is not something a reasonable person causing emotional distress to put them in fear for their safety it's a box of kleenex purchased in a public place the entire action act happened in a public place there was nothing about that that was had any sort of evil intention behind it at all perhaps a labatt's that doesn't constitute an act of stalking but there was more to that incident as the would submit that if a person was subjects just some sort of stuffing behavior that was sufficient enough to cause the cause him emotional distress or to cause him to fear for his safety he would certainly recall the day that none of that's in the order or in the either in the petition there's no evidence of that in the hearing we don't know when it happened but there's no suggestion that he was shooting fire out of his eyes when he looked in his windows i don't know how that can be says that he saw mr park walking on the other side of the road my impression and i can't tell you now if that's because it's clear the record if it was just my impression that this was also in the downtown area near businesses and perhaps this will cross his office i'm not sure but that could he possibly determine that it was threatening harassing it could have been good morning perhaps but he didn't testify that he didn't he didn't testify it was hostile he didn't there's no way to infer just office his phone rang and he knew it was mr clarke and so we hung up on him there's no testimony as to how he knew it was mr clarke nothing about what he said again i don't we don't have enough evidence in the record to support that as a finding that there were several and i also i raised that issue and issue that there were foundational problems with several things that were roboto or the next allegation was about facebook photos there was a like this something like that but mr hosty testify that he does have a facebook account when you've seen it that way and he claims his secretary showed it to me there's some dispute between his testimony and the secretary's testimony about whether the secretary was directed to go find these things look at these things bring these things to me or whether she just happened on and voluntarily gave it all the same it is a public message it's something that's out in the world he's not his living room absolutely no threat to any of this he did post another comment about how mr lucas he had sent client goons to relay messages to him and i believe that may have actually been posted as ski but knowing how facebook works and mr clarke is fully aware of and explained that that was not actually directed to him it was a manner of speaking because he's not his friend on facebook so there was no realistic expectation that could go to him and it was actually asking mr look kosky to quit sending people to intimidate mr clarke so those are the allegations the petition not all of them had evidence presented at trial or at the hearing  interestingly there is a lot of evidence about incident that happened in september of two thousand and fourteen and keep in mind these these things stand back five or six months in september where there was some incident at a bar called the iron head which i gather is a par that area where they both were present there is a lot of dispute about what may have happened outside of it the important part about the i think a and sudden as it was never alleged it was not alleged in the petition there was no way for anyone to be on notice that was going to be discussed and in order that no contact order is absolutely limited to the allegations that are put in the petition and this was not one so all the evidence about that should have been excluded and the trap would allow that over objection i certainly understand why but they did and that is evidence that they never should have had presented to them in the first place so when you add up the testimony that mr lew kosky and his secretary presented not only is it inconsistent with what he alleges petition but it strange and you ask questions about it mr kosky was asked directly at the hearing did you make a police report and he said no i didn't think it rose to that level and i mentioned it to his officer friend but he didn't make a police report if he wasn't emotionally disturbed or in fear for his safety enough to make a police report why is that sufficient to establish a second act of stalking shouldn't be it simply isn't those are contradictory things that go to his credibility i think if you look at how this entire case played out and the public defender for twenty years if somebody doesn't scream at me every day i think that i have forgotten to go to work it is not acceptable but it's kind of the nature of the beast it's part and parcel of dealing with most of personalities in different situations what we have here is one incident where there's no doubt that mr clarke was socially inappropriate and he should not have behaved the way he did in mr  i'm not going to argue that was ok it wasn't he should have done but it's one incident these things only came out this petition filed by mr lucas he was only finally after mr clarke wrote a petition against him and same as coming to a hearing and providing sufficient evidence that shows he has committed to or more acts of stalking so it's just a bunch of course on that simply didn't do it the evidence is not sufficient here he did not establish that be on a preponderance of the evidence and the transport simply should not enter the order and we would ask that you would take that initial order and of course anything that has been based on that since then i could see that supplementing the record with the additional things if you would like testify that the reason he was appointed to represent mr clarke was because mr pike didn't get along with his previous counsel obviously that kind of lays the groundwork that we may be dealing with difficult personality conflict ing issues zero i believe the same reason that counsel stated that i have asked the trial court to extend the order in the trial court has extended the order i believe the next date on that is october third but i would have to confirm to make sure that accurate but it's within that sometime in early o court's finding of fact which is should be by a preponderance of the evidence if it finds the trial court's finding as against the manifest way to be evidence of finding as against the manifest car afterwards my secretary called me only that and i said well ok there after she apparently went to his house i did not know that was going to happen or not going did happen until the next determine what was said i could tell it wasn't nice i could tell it wasn't complimentary i think anybody in my position could have that when the phone rang i saw the caller id is his name i heard his voice i knew it was him and i hung up i don't i don't think so but i don't recall i  i don't believe i was ever asked that question so i don't think so y makes a point that i never want the police to meet going to the police is a big deal a bigger deal than piling a out of stalking order i court during testimony on when i believe the petition filed by mr court and here vyas me that he would like more information about the incident and asked me and  on i bring that up to answer the allegation that somehow this was done out of revenge or conspiracy there is ample ample evidence in the record that matter how honour's look at it but there were two or more instances of harassment by mr clarke against me and i think the brain that sense done the right yelling across the street incident i think the outcome would still be the same the evidence was not closely matched it was i think very obvious to judge bennett that two or more incidents occurred and he made the correct rulin that and my very last point is that you know as i said i certainly understand mr to position and his discomfort and dislike of the situation he just told you that when mr clark spoke to him across the street he took it poorly because you know mr clark doesn't like it and it's not nice i would suggest that these orders are don't exist to make people be nice and to make people like you it must be a much more significant step to justify the entry of an order that has if something goes wrong these are important things they shouldn't just be used because you can there needs to be a legitimate basis for it and it's important at this point not just rubber stamp but the trial court that it's important to look very closely at the evidence and see that it just does not measure up and when you do that i'm confident that if you actually read what the evidence was as opposed to what put it in a brief or argued here if