you're going on too long i'll ask you to wrap up if to speak up a member they said about recording it yet it's been played right in the middle if you will so that your your voice will be recorded this is being recorded so the microphone needs to pick up your  last order which was whether or not i would know what it could suffice and i'd like to address that particular issue in and also does just how cool was written order sufficed to meet the and regarding so it's thank you i'm sorry i just have a question and you do seem to have agreed that the statement on the record requirement and the statute can be for felt by a written regarding the fact that this is possible that it's could come up again where she would be subject to medication especially the type of medication that was ordered in this case which lends itself to short term  and the reason why under the table of repetition your debating review exception to the move the stack or what the owners report said there was a recognized is a matter of course a matter of law that a ninety day order will always have to fight the first part of that test it's too too but it doesn't satisfy the other parts most importantly what the court identified in their case and it was a case involving a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as opposed to a challenge regarding the compliance with a particular statute not an in the present case would be likely to affect a future case involving respondent so it's not simply that this respondent might be subject to additional motions to for the involuntary miss it ministration of cycle of medication it's whether or not the resolution of the issue which she has raised in this case will be hopeful in any future scenario but why wouldn't it be because the question here is whether an apt the judge in this case made a sufficiently detailed finding at the end of this proceeding newspaper had argued was that even though you know poor pleading is over they should still be able to go forward with the matter because under this cable repetition you debating you because there will be additional future juvenile cases and the newspaper as the litigants in there is trying to establish their rights to have access to the materials so the resolution of the issue in that case the precise legal issue being presented is what is defining for that for the move this exception and that really is the rule that applies for except what is the legal issue which is being sought to be resolved and why should a court find that there is an exception to the movie star because again the presence in the importance of the movie stacking is the courts do not issue advisory as to the substantial public interest exception the court again said there that mental health cases yes they're important but that's only the class of cases you have to look at what the issue is that's gets to the heart of my substantive argument got him into reverse directory but getting to the i guess the more precise question i think you're asking your order that you issued last week is to be able to discuss the the meaning of the written order and whether or not it satisfies staff i believe that i do fully believe that they would in order is sufficient to satisfy all the needs that are applied to the whole mental health though is that it satisfies to dash one of seven point one by giving clear guidance to  all and the providers as to what has to be done it provides clear guidance to the respondent this to what was found and where her legal rights are and where they go the problem is that according to the james s case with her span of lies and according to the statute a written order isn't enough by itself because what the statute specifically says is the court fell and for a written order and it shall be accompanied by a statement on the record if that shall be accompanied by that really says that the written order shouldn't be  and that's why we make the argument in our brief that you can if this case worked the statute would have you read his directory is close to mandatory and the reason for that is the legislature can that tell judges how to make point of view how do we know what he found this is not recorded anywhere you're entering i would say that you don't have to know precisely what he found it is well established that so if the jets sense i find that the statutory requirements are met and that's is necessary in order to prepare a valid judgment should be subject to review going back to your i remember the word how was was floated out there you took the position that the legislature can't tell the court fairly extensive oral statements oral findings but were mostly legal conclusions and then signed a form order which had almost nothing in the order it went up on appeal b appellate court reversed it reversed it writing is explicit that it must be in writing or findings are sufficient the legislature can't demand that the judge issue a written finding he can do it orally in that situation so again there's an example where that and the definition with this is the ability to grant effective relief this or this involuntary medication order expired want to go it is no longer possible to grant the respondent in this case and he effectively sending the matter back to the trial court for additional findings as occurred in madison age won't serve any purpose and in that regard i would point the support to justice kilbride's c and the the practice in at particular court with that this would lend itself to the third accepted material opponent talked about that really makes it makes it important for us to to address this  a fact specific scenario unlike the in re minor case where the newspaper was saying we have these rights we need to be able to get these right so that we can assert time this is instead whether or not this particular trial court judge after hearing this particular set facts through the testimony and other evidence presented makes explicitly detail fine in order to satisfy in order to satisfy people's your view of compliance with the statute that's this is really very similar to the finding in that particular case would not have any significant effect in future cases related to his mental health status it was it's so that people repetition you debating review exception is one soley looking at asshole's ations and her other instances and as we sudden our brief the james h case recognizes that there could be and it's the consequences are not simply the fact that there's been a finding the consequences are the mental health history itself that those have apply in the scenario certainly separation power supplies etc and if you read the in re ascii case carefully you will see that the court engages in a mandatory vs directory dichotomy and the reason why they say that the statute make case was mandatory as opposed to directory was because the staff you provided for a remedy itself call for the dismissal of the proceedings if the if the abuser got receive internet completed in the statutory time frame that is the key to the distinction to either dismiss as moved or to affirm because the statute is merely direct but if you think you do we have individuals who will suffer from these particular conditions that do not want to take medication if used to take if there is a personality issue and then they keep coming back from three