case we believe it cannot be said that the reasonable person could agree with this decision and you believe that really the kitchen was an appropriate sanction for four reasons first to show that the pas that he used over a span of years and that's how he was caught in this case i just want to make it clear that what we're talking about is not in their physical contact with trouble that's right now no evidence that there was any actual physical contact the child  but the reliance on that has to be tempered by the fact that are dealing with a particular kind of offense that is very difficult to monitor her difficult to detect it's done in secret the victims aren't able to report abuse or th are correct it should be they should they should be able to do that but he can't intended that the department be able to now to additional protection for the public in addition to whatever things there may be as part of the criminal next case found that the the the that the punishment was overly harsh how do you distinguish that it was from the facts of this case i mean you have a quarter of discretion because it's too harsh for our show because other cases happened to sign differently but only if the harshness of the difference in the cases enables us to infer that well there is a which specifically interests them to consider moral contour of character as a part of the qualification and to consider whether they've been convicted of any felony and to consider conduct that is unethical dishonorable and so  what is the correlation there i mean i'm duck trust me i'm not i'm playing devil's advocate here i'm trying to get you the townie that i understand the seriousness of child pornography but how is child when you look at the fact that they say he is no not just films that happened in the course of your court according to you look at the language it says anything unethical dishonorable and so on it's clear that they're concerned about the example public contractor misconduct even though it doesn't involve a violation of any trial or any it's a property crime but anybody convicted of that offense you cannot do business with the state of illinois or insult the vision this situation is involved in a despicable series of offenses he'll be back in three years yes and that's you know so how how does you why i think it was a reasonable and one of the reasons especially it is you know i can get into the details about the days and i can suggest some ideas about why they did why there was a delay but what is most telling this case in the all for adults in the community to help hold people in high regard people with all kinds of professions from warriors to judges to doctors physicians coaches teachers you children and when they are found out everyone was shocked because that is the natural inclination that we have as a trusting adults we trust our fellow man in just a severe penalties are warranted without any further discussion or explanation and that  in this case there was an image that one person knew about so they could catch a signature and you know with the patriot act and all the filtering is going on i don't see how can use to conclude through circumstantial evidence that the director of uses discretion he didn't consider the relevant  also considers similar cases on there that were more similar to that particular one not very different cases here on the character witnesses that he relies so much on the problem with no means is that they observed nothing different than the observed when he was by his own mission offending and bad moral character what they said about him and how they felt about that and changed and they also had no expertise that we need us to predict a different result this time that's why the director properly didn't give that great weight do you find it you find it a little disturbing that the attorney general's office prosecuted this case and then never did anything to fall off what would be done i don't know what happened in this case the record is the record specific about what happened were they trying to report whether they forgot to report but but i mean is it is it fair to say to this guy he had been out for you know the circus time in the sentence he served his time he provided his probation he was he was your argument and courts will take