california law was unjustified and could not be allowed by the court yet on april twelfth the district attorney only asked for a continu to announce ready did suggest the judge look at the motion to proceed to dismiss but when the judge turned to the district attorney the district attorney's only comments were continue this case he suggested may because he didn't have jurisdiction correct know he had jurisdiction hung up that's not what the california court ruled later well the gist are isn't that isn't that the ruling that we have to respect regarding whether or not  no you can you can certainly look independently whether the court was right or not we can decide as a matter of california law that the california trial court had jurisdiction when the california court of appeals said it did not if the court of you have to find in violation of the federal constitution here in order to get relief well if you take the approach that the superior court didn't have jurisdiction you're saying that the court didn't have any choice court was ruling on was but as i said that petition whatever else was going on was not of any concern to the superior court because the superior court only had the district attorney's petition there so when you say well the court of appeals talked about jurisdiction they're talking about something that occurred later because new legislation was passed on down the line but you're could be held indefinitely as the district attorney was asking and if this court of appeals was right that you could be held indefinitely then his due process rights would be violated under the federal constitution because states can't do that but he wasn't held at that issued the river order that authorized law enforcement personnel to arrest him you don't know when confronted with that question but wasn't at the trial court you know i think perhaps i've never heard of a court of appeals during that happened maybe i think you're right you know now that you bring that up i think that the superior court in response to the order they were directed by the court of appeals must have issued that order that was probably two thousand has presented not he has cited no united states supreme court precedent stating that the facts of this case whips confer jurisdiction upon the trial court to release petition er and in any event to change petitions claiming that his release gave him some kind of liberty interest is false for one basic reason and that is he never should have been released in the first  because the trial court had no jurisdiction to issue such an order in short the titian or it claiming that his iranians really gives them a legal entitlement and that insists that the court rules otherwise then he will have to have the recommitment hearing and a determination made on the very issue that was before the court on april twelfth one thousand nine hundred ninety what is your best case for the proposition that the statute could not be applied retroactively i think it is from the language in the us supreme court in  perhaps of course it could very good argue it could be made showing the parallel of a statute with ex post facto laws that i have deliberately not raised that issue so that it would not confuse the issue because this is clearly a civil commitment but when referring to due process concerns a particular concern for the courts because of the legislation temptation to use retroactive legislation as a means of retribution against unpopular groups or individuals and that may apply to mr a you because of the victim in his case or because of use he's mentally ill