jacob kaplan behalf of joshua there is no evidence in this case that joshua sheltie violated any of the bail conditions by having his roommate access the internet on his behalf in this case as part of the written and oral bail ba orders judge specifically allowed which all serves as discretion whether or not they were allowed to access the internet the actual provision specifically states devices with internet access while on bail if pretrial services believes the defendant can possess such a device and preach trial is authorized to monitor that device that was the court's written order consistent with a written order mr sheltie and his of services in late september and asked him permission from the shoulders roommate to have a computer in the apartment as well as to do internet searches and check the e mail from a specialty on two of bail and are we in the position to say that this manifestly erroneous i mean you know we could decide it but here's a guy on the spot would decide for you who think that there are things going on i mean how are we in a better position to decide whether very defensive but the question is whether or not judge crotty his decision was clearly erroneous the only facts that were listed at the proper in that that's the kind of access that pretrial services would have the authority to use that kind of network i understand your concern however the because it seems so yes the could be more clarification but the issue is is whether or not he violated the bill conditions the bill conditions as set forth were inviolate th the defendant should be detained in this case the defendant flagrant flagrantly violated his bail conditions by directing his roommate to use tor there is no dispute in this case that the use of tour was not expressly authorize preach all services your honor and i think what judge crotty found which is we think consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the baler that is if the defendant wanted to use tor and that is so beyond what would be a reasonable or appropriate for a so on his behalf i believe so your honor i believe that if if the cousin wanted to use tor on the defendant's behalf again that's just gets back to what would be a reasonable interpretation of the bail provisions here we've proffered to the core below that torah specifically used to hide  internet activities we've also proffered to the court that this defendant while he was allegedly committing the child pornography cases was using tor there's evidence of that as well and even more more to the point the defendant actually admitted that he was using tor release so he could hide his internet activities judge probably had all that information before him when he could make a determination about whether he violated his bail conditions and he was also balancing this against an intervening additional felony sexual assault arrest from another jurisdiction in determining whether he told violated those conditions and whether he was a danger to to the community so we don't think that judge crotty erred much less committed clear air in making that determination  that the use of internet in connection with in addition to the intervening federal or excuse me state arrest or felony sexual assault charges was sufficient to revoke this defendant's bail so yes he was basing both of both of those things  on the ultimate bail determination  he did your honor he did i see my time is up the most or another any other questions that i've been honest with you know oh i'm sorry i thought i was up i saw the i miss the light so i just just know that the the record here was extensive  before i said there was three separate bail determent bail arguments that judge probably had before and there was also the evidence of what the defendant was doing while on pretrial release and finally there was this intervening arrest and so judge crotty was in in the appropriate position to make that determination of whether he should be detained and he we believe he made that appropriate determination thank you and your thank you to just briefly to address the issue of virginia judge crotty found that the violation of the bail conditions was the basis under section thirty one forty eight forty eight however the second part of analysis of that statute requires that the finding of whether or not there are a combination of conditions as part of that clear relying on i agree about the clear danger but the clear danger only comes into play after you have a finding under the first section that there is a violation under section thirty one forty eight first you must find a violation of the court's bail order and then as a second step once you find a violation you determine whether or not there's a combination of conditions to lay the danger as part of that analysis judge found after finding clearly rowsley we believe that there was a violation of the conditions he then found that there was a danger based on the virginia case