be the first issue is whether in this case it was basically a stipulated that trial and whether that complies with the illinois law with regard to due process section five  sure for which is proceedings after quit or by after finding him not guilty by reason of insanity and our basically the mental health code as you well know on because a commitment you know post determination that some of this found not guilty by reason of insanity as pursuant to the supreme court there quit you know so after the next step is a commitment hearing and basically under the cold and hungry illinois right but i would argue that the stipulated bench that the proceeding i march night doing live with on basically the state students present clear and convincing evidence strictly to the finding of the report knox of the whole report of the report was not never entered into evidence it was never entered in the record i had to track down the report and do it as a motion supplement the record so this case on the defense counsel stipulated to the finding appropriate for the state stipulate to report the judge found the person on committed for a period of sixty years this was a commitment for a period of sixteen years and whether he recognizes that he's waving his right to cross examine or basically because the report was never entered into evidence and they illinois law because basically our report was entered into evidence and the was armed and there was a statement by our attorney that the client person meets the standards for the  volume statutes that we have to not spell out everything there are things that you do that are not listed in the statute and perhaps i'm being extreme on my position on that but that's basically you know because the commitment special you know you only have the power of commitment through the statute i'm there is a section five three seven which requires expert testimony before commitment cases on i think it's now heard for the truck or to comply with due process law to verify with the person to see if they agree with the stipulation with the waiver of their rights cross examined with the civil but if you consider a commitment is depriving a person's liberty for a period of sixty years i think it substantial enough that's not a certain normal civil order this is what's been agreed to the stipulation that you're going to be committed for this period of time do you agree to that and to inform them of the consequences of agreeing to this commitment now state argues well cribbing during that each hundred knots so there could have been a question of fact whether he was sufficient to do outpatient treatment order which is basically a super probation or not so and furthermore there is an issue of prejudice this is you know this is going to be the consequence of you agree to this to the defendant are not required and that you don't have to get the defendant's approval of the agreement i think as far as the admonitions of this court can also look defense counsel stipulate to a finding their words the state's attorney stipulates to the same or worse and the courts will based on that report that's been submitted and the parties who make a court written order which states that based on the report the defense is weak in you've increased surplus this is not a case where they stipulated that the defendant is in need of mental and that was the president's own was that there was no determination as to the need for continued commitment he expressed he said that there is precious here there was a finding and the  argue that junction should be distinguished because there is a line of case law that if someone waves a basic due process right they should be informed of what right back is that someone's being committed for a period of time without being informed of the consequence or you don't have water told him what was going on i don't know there's nothing on the record there's no single trip by him there's nothing