released to comply with the mental health regimen prescribe as a part of his or her conditional release the nd finding and this is where the statutory language becomes very important to lie about that failure to abide by bijan by the mental health scheme that we're talking about today and what the plea were to keep order six contemplates that there may be people who recover from their mental illness to the point that they are no longer committable and if bad it does happen there's a provision under forty dollars to forty six dollars that would allow for them to be released from coast to be released from conditional release and turn back into community unconditionally so i think the statutes recognizes that a have heard you is that i seek to revoke a person's term of conditional release they are automatically and they are automatically her decision that a district court has to make and so the put it in different terms i believe that district court is going to revoke a term of initial release they have to make a finding that the person by a lady of the visions of release but remain dangerous as that is defined by the controlling statutory language right i put so much emphasis on the identity that exists in the statutory language to commit somebody and be exact same language being used in the matrix revoking somebody is conditional  a tremendous statutory identity between committing somebody initially and then rebooking their term of conditional release yet their national release down the road i think the statutory questions are very very similar because they use virtually identical language so to answer the court's question if the person is conditionally released d that is because they have had at some point a mental illness just take us back to the status quo ante which was you been found to be mentally ill and dangerous and we only way you can be released is on these conditions i do if the conditions no  concern i have with bad is that using that to read the statute are less than i believe it actually says it's contrary to the statutory language impermissibly ships the burden to the film to show that it is no longer medical i guess the way of saying it is if a government is going to maintain has to be and jurisdiction in authority over a person pursuant to the federal statutes they have an ongoing responsibility to show that that person remains a medical and the existence of a collateral remedy under four thousand and forty seven age is not a reason to interpret what you keep forty six or less than it actually  the risk assessment and that was one of the reasons that i felt like mr spence case called out for a relief because the last risk assessment that dealt with the issue of interest in this was more than five years ago  order to revoke somebody's under subsection there has to be a finding as to dangerousness because it uses the exact same statutory language that's used to define dangerousness in the additional net and this is where one of my great concerns arises d is that as it currently stands the district or not requiring a finding of president newdow or mental illness excuse me that causes the person to be dangerous rather than that the court is making a dangerousness conclusion based on compliance with the regimen of treatment or whether the person has otherwise complied with the conditions of release because of that my concern is that the district courts reading the statute has now gone from a very narrow question that i think the world is asking about and that that is is the person mentally ill and that causes it to be dangerous now or asking a question that is greatly broadened and completely unhitched for other than the narrow question of dangerousness under the initial commitment statute and because we are no longer asking the question is this person presently mentally ill and does that cause them to be dangerous to the revocation proceedings are now greatly expanded in their scope and potentially could be completely unlinked from the defendant's mental illness there's you're even there sorry isn't the whole purpose of a conditional release that the person is being released because only because by following these conditions they will be released back into the community and really all the conditions yes i believe that's exactly right the other you mentioned before that this would improperly show the birth this is a civil think it would be improper for a person who has had d liberty taken away by the government's actions to have the burden of proving that they're not susceptible to that provision of liberty evidence that this person is mentally ill not cause them to be dangerous but because of the fluidity d of mental illness and especially with somebody like mr spann who has not been examined for five years we don't have a clear sense of what his present mental state is and if he were able to prove that he had recovered from his mental illness he would no longer meet the criteria that forty six but i like to save a b you think that's unconstitutional release would create a substantial risk and the judge found that the judge has discretion in a given case about whether to for an independent examination of mental health if the judge were s if the committed person wanted to arrange his own exam and put on evidence of the results of that would it be permissible i'm going to have to tell you here i do not know the answer to that  very well thank you for your argument what does the statutory language mean in forty six when it talks about whether a person continued release makes them dangerous and i think judge grass question is right to the are if if we can stop at them violating the conditions and the remainder of that statutory language is meaningless and certainly that would violate canada's statutory interpretation judge carleton asked well doesn't noncompliance per that noncompliance creates dangerousness only if the person remains presently mentally mentally ill in such a way that noncompliance would create that dangerousness and i think it's a chicken and egg question but ultimately it's why wait why couldn't the judge address whether there's a substantial risk on a case by case basis and decide whether there's a need for a mental health exam on a case by case basis  showing that he's recovered substantially maybe that triggers obligation to look at it more closely and do more examination i don't know those are some thoughts if that really would indeed be a way of shifting the burden really stupid what the government is doing is they are asking for a change in the status quo the status quo is the person has been conditional release d the government is now asking that that be read by a statute in my opinion is very clear that they must group certain things trigger that revocation of conditional release and one of those things is to show that this person is presently suffering a mental illness that would make them dangerous as if they were continued in their release