this case and that would be to vacate the commitment pursuant to personally see because the commitment was based on unconstitutional quote dangerous conduct standard a standard  that was first on a constitutional by the trustee see case and the legislature since repealed that standard the second district just did the same thing with a similar case i think the social assessment there was no report on the appropriateness of ability to turn it where there is no evidence like that the recourse is to reverse i'd also like to point out that this court has always been a big advocate of written information about a patient case and similar to the written information that must be provided in medication case it is the written information that must be provided to the trial court for purposes of disposition so a copy of what was filed as the disposition report is included in the appendix to the opening group it's i think three pages all together and one of those pages is just all of the treatment team's names and signatures even the treatment plan portion of disposition report doesn't provide any information on the respondents treatment oral argument state's motion to dismiss the case is moot the court had asked for a response from charles h and we included in that response to the motion to dismiss that there are no other commitment orders besides this one for charles h there had been one other admission that was handled by my colleague downstate par will not be exactly a question it's somewhat of a commentary and i think it again a fire is some structural weaknesses in our system i think part of the problem with the appeals is a different approach to the trial work than in other parts of the state i can tell you that in cook county where we have we have trying to count the attorneys we have we each have a day of the week but i'm one day because of both a state operated facility and multiple private hospitals we have two attorneys that day so there are six attorneys handling defense work in cook county for approximately thirty five hundred to four thousand cases a year and we have a very intentional approach to our practice  we may have that many cases on each court call a day but we may only have a few that actually go to trial and that's i think that's because of time spent with the clients time spent behind the scenes working with the treatment team talking with the witnesses talking with family members involved looking to see if there are a looking to see if people like to do a reading outpatient orders a lot of times when the respondents feel that they are getting all the respect and process that they're entitled to they're willing to work within the system and frankly we have some some doctors who work very well with patients and when we see a case an involuntary case filed with that doctor involved we know that is a very serious case because that doctor usually works very well is able to persuade the recipient to stay is a voluntary a lot of times a respondent may be willing to continue the case for a week because there's going to be a discharge or there's going to be an alternative placement in the works and i think maybe what would be a really helpful thing that happened is for  our office to maybe share some of what we do with the states and for the state's attorney as well on the state's attorney and the defense counsel to share some of those ideas with the state's attorney and the defense but the offer has been made and unfortunately there used to be a guardianship and advocacy legal advocacy service attorney out in in the serving the springfield area and when that person when that person left the position was never filled was never funded again we've been very much like to have another legal advocacy service so attorney to be able to to serve the public defenders credit i think there have been some different ones lately but we have been dealing with one person for a period of time and that public defender would contact us or  suggestions in cases from time to time that we would share information but that i don't think that the caseload is necessarily overwhelming here it probably compares a lot to what one person has in cookout but not every case can go to trial if we're having a trials in a day we're not doing the job i can tell you that most of my colleagues and i you know are we don't know how we could get through everything we need to cover in less than an hour and a half a lot of times our trials are going longer than but an hour and a half this is  amount of time that we will devote when we have trials in polk county except for chicago reid mental health center madden mental health center into the park medical center the three state operated  facilities trials happen there we have regular courtrooms there but now trials are also happening at the private hospitals and when the judges are struggling trials when we have multiple trials on a given day  there i want it about two hours per try so so those are some of some of my thoughts on this and it sounds daunting but i think there are ways to manage and to are you going first did not address but had to address two ish that are relevant to the disposition of this case involving the same or similar statutory provisions in those questions are whether problems in the involuntary movement problems in our society are ones that won't go away and the availability of sufficient resources to deal with those in a way that respects right your whole argument about the constitutionality of no help and or ski moot since the legislature changed the statute the worst case continues to be cited as precedent were not constitutionally protected conduct that's not my case those are my facts but because of that possibility the whole thing goes down and so it can't be applied to me and it can't be applied to anyone that we have an institutional responsibility to defend question as to whether there was any movements exception applicable in that case there was none and so there was no basis for to continue to consider the case but if collateral consequences do move why i think it's conceded in this case that they do because this is the first involuntary commitment cation then we have a lot of controversy to change the story for subsequent commitments by other people in other cases doesn't take away their collateral consequences exception to  under the old language how we maybe you know ships passing in the night here in you know what i'd like to do to try to explain my position is to use an analogy here that might help if there were a criminal statute were somebody were convicted under that statute and there were a challenge to the constitutionality of stairs and subsequently after the acts that gave rise to conviction the legislature changed the statute to eliminate it in alleged constitutional infirmity of that statute that would render you know the the the he was different from that situation because there were no collateral consequences the preserve the live controversy of determining the validity of view judy cation under the former statute whose constitutional these arguments i think so relatively completely in our brief we understand that it is not an easy thing to do in fact this is my ten years of practice this is the first time i've been in the situation where i today which is standing in front of a court that issued his decision and respectfully saying your honour's we think you got it wrong and we think you got it wrong for these reasons and we do urge the court to address those to which because of the with the responsibility to give a limiting permissible construction to a state with her boss now the other side with respect to the stairs for instruction issue has essentially taken the position that the the and i'm reading from page danger threatening conduct in a reasonable risk of harm we can see that in the prior version the statute there was more specificity but it did refer to a risk of serious physical harm in the near future to the responde problem in which a person on the slope twerps the triggering events of being a danger to himself or herself or others was not able to get the benefit of intervention and then it would be too late in the of will consequences were underway that's the thrust of the legislative initiative that's what the legislative history shows the group behind this was and a here materials that they've circulated to the extent those can be considered a consistent with their closing council site some proposition on the website of some unrelated organization the advocacy center it says we've eliminated the concept of dangerous the relevant test is not can you imagine some circumstances in which its application becomes where you board around the edge of what's constitutionally permissible or otherwise it's uncertain but there is no standard at all conduct the reasonable risk of harm that is not overly standard us and if the court needs to find that it would be unconstitutional as applied to the type situations that involve minimal or trivial of motion or financial harm that's one thing but to strike it down it's entirety because it is unconstitutional as every situation we submit is not warranted but if you have a president the court shouldn't push to find situations in which it may or be unconstitutional but are not presented on the facts of a given case and then use those to strike down the entire spirit rather the presumptions of all of the opposite direction reported seek to limit the stare to reasonably possible find a substantial legitimate scope for example occasion and if so conclude that it cannot be facially unless the court has additional questions i truly appreciate your time and consideration of these difficult question different context and the hate with decision referred force but here can be applied to hard to show that we should throw common sense out the window and so what we'll see even refer to the understanding by professionals element emphasize is something i learned in law school to keep reading which is the fact that even if the section one cashpoint nineteen standard referring to a person subject to involuntary admission could apply to people who under the entire scheme in the state cited the florida case this is not going to end up applying to people who are not dangerous enough to be hospitalized so for that reason the entire statutory scheme should be analyzed for constitutionality talk to their doctors so that's why written information is required their report is not needed in this context and joseph h with the medication decision referring to bootstrapping and alleging that respond it will be dangerous unless medicate but that's not a rule that says that presently dangerous individuals and like charles h was at the time should be allowed to basically keep themselves out of the hospital by voluntarily by deciding to refuse medication and  capacity to refuse medication so therefore we can even bring an involuntary medication and stim so that the medication issue is actually a red herring and that was the commitment most justified based on his presen argument that the state is on the opposite side of that argument well especially with the attorney general's website which highlights the rights of persons with disabilities and as the attorney general  warrants taking away a person's individual freedom so i wanted to make that point that we do feel that you see it was correct we do feel that the constitutional requirements i think it's interesting too that that the state and the attorney general are still arguing the substance of tarski when the state moved to dismiss this case is moot saying that the public interest exception no longer applies to that i don't think we're here i would like to point out the and mr h is for five three which talks about when there is a change to the statute there is no longer a need to delve into that statute  so as far as revisiting the substance of choice that this moot because of the change in the legislature whether to apply the tourist you see decision to this case is a question of law i don't think that  moot i think because of the collateral consequences to charles h if this if this decision stands one way or another this case should be decided on the merits either addressing the u nconstitutional standard in applying tor ski and vacating the commitment because it was the commitments based on the constitutional standard or whether it's based on the problems with the disposition but i concept of of harm here the state's attorney spoke with you about invading the personal space of others charles h came to springfield at the from hospitalization that does not warrant involuntary hospitalization thank you we would ask that you either reverse the charles h commitment vacated or vacated according