asking the court to find that he is not still actually a violent person he came up at the same time just as a result of scheduling now we have two distinct petitions before the court and they may have competing petitions preside at the court because they're in competition at the same time there's still the separate titian's that the state was person matt and has he addressed the issues of probable cause on you know the elements of the past establish that he is not he's certainly not going to be able to show that he hasn't had a prior conviction to what the state submitted or do you simply have to take issue with how the court evaluated it and proceeded and proceeded perhaps from your view misunderstanding of its role given that this was a c section seven the benefit of pardon at the time and that we did have that probable cause hearing that we should at least be allowed to have further proceedings on mr i stand for just an initial section sevent his petition here because it is his first petition for discharge it was brought under section sixty five to one of the not section seventy section seventy only talks about multiple titian's for discharge and what it says is that if the the change condition that would be required under section seventy but he does have to show that some change has occurred not under section seventy but that something different has happened since he was previously adjudicated in s t p in two stage we have a post commitment petition for discharge and we have conflicting expert opinions in the trial court has to be able to assign weight to one of those opinions in order to find either the presence or lack probable cause what harm was talking about is sufficient to establish probable cause why is that wrong we would argue that that would be contrary to the framework of the statute but the legislature intended when it would in this probable cause step before proceeding to a further evidence your hearing missing responsibility for his actions that he's showing any remorse for what he's committed in the past and these are all factors that have been considered to be relevant in determining whether or not probable cause exists on this question other cour think is going on here in the statute if you get your thoughts as to where you think i might correct sections of the deals with someone who is the committed sexually violen right ok it seems to me the legislature on the one hand fought people so committed who are literally maybe pictures petitions you haven of people who are just not happy about being behind bars that before we burden the courts with a hearing trial and would agree that there has to be this rush but given that threshold and given probable cause and given you know we hear with probable cause all the time women are hearing it's probably cause where you have to demonstrate clause ability seems to me i think that's even a worthy it's not much that's not much so i suppose my question is threshold hearing because it wanted the truck would have this gate keeping function and if we were to adopt the respondent bright line rule that would essentially render that problem probable cause hearing meaningless which would be contrary to more except that your bright line is that unless the report uses the words and specifically said this change has behind that is the premise that absent treatment there can't be changed and i think that's probably true but given the length of time that some of these individuals are incarcerated how can you begin with the premise that individuals in a social tendencies cannot be diminished during the term of incarceration because we know that there are some people who come in pretty serious i mean a lot of adjudicated that would make him no longer sexually violent any one of these things or in a loner standing together that could be a sufficient change and i will i wouldn't necessarily characterize it right lionel i would say that if gives more meaning to the probable cause standard which is by definition a case by case determination if fact specific inquiry so we allow the trapper to be able to weigh each expert opinion at that probable cause that actually allows the court to do that case by  same if the state had no presented its own report you're saying that that report of withers is so deficient that it does need to be challenged or it doesn't need to be counterbalanced by the view of your expert well i think in most of these situations as we have here there are going to be conflicting expert opinions but i think what your position be sufficiently addressed the past even though whether spoon says that he looked at the files that he looked at the priory valuations in considered those and then administered these new there these different actuarial like responded here before they can get to a full fledged trial they have to show something them straight this plausibility to their claim that i've now better you should let me know if in fact this is what the what generally experts in the field say for example talking with us from said that the fact that the respondent did not admit responsibility for his actions that tended to actually decrease his risk of real and when he says something that seems to be common to the general school  about an unwillingness to accept responsibility that shows that i regret that you would you agree that the majority of evaluators people in this field seem to believe that except in responsibility showing some degree of remorse or understanding of what has section seven it's not meaningless the legislature provided for two provision that allows the respondent to fire a petition for just charge one is