looks to me like the question of whether the instructions required actual knowledge was not to the california court of appeal i was actually raised in the california courts the objection here i t it was not to them that he didn't have actual knowledge of the registration requirement as far as i can see with all due respect the one issue was raised in the california supreme court by way of attorney in the district attorney says no our position is that you have to register every place you sleep every time you move you have to go back to the sheriff's office and reregister so if you're sleeping in the park one night you register you by registering his mother's address which was the address with which he had the most connection and gave that his address i also want to point out that this case of sort of unique california has subsequent to mr smith's case rewritten in statute to explicitly provide for this kind of situation where the crawly has no the ultimate decision amounted to such an unreasonable my contention is that it did not and that there are factors here circumstantial evidence that when you look at the the entire record what went on here that that mr smith knew about his obligation he didn't go back to his parole officer when he was going down because of a problem he didn't go back to his parole officer he actively avoided his parole officer and all law enforcement as six the next report or the last report there was was he filled out a registration giving his mother's address on the tenth of january then he was no more to be found until the middle of april when he was first of all it's not important doesn't he just have to register once he changes from wherever whether he goes to a new address or not if he leaves one address because we have to reregister on that along yes he does and that's my position with regard to the actual your the definition of residence here is not obviously the classic presidents like we have a house with an address on the street but it really means he needs to let law enforcement know the place where he is staying he lives that's where he is i have a place where i live all the time i'm here on a matter of business which hopefully will be over with pretty quickly here but and by whom it doesn't have enough he doesn't have another place to live that's where he let's say somebody is traveling across the country lots of them moving from new york to san francisco right and they've given up their house in new york and they haven't yet bought a house and you know they want to come out here case and all the circumstances and what we know he did know because he was advised he purposely it appears from this record of voided establishing a new residence for the purpose of avoiding this requirement know well i'm not sure about the case regarding the successor statute but my my position is with regard to the legislation that came after this case was simply that it made explicit what was implicit in this statute well a reasonable interpretation of this statute would be and he knew he'd been admitted on cross examination that he wasn't going back to his parole officer to ask about the residency problem that he had  because he knew he was in violation of his parole and he didn't want to go back there and he was affirmatively of voiding going back and so what happens with this interpretation of the statute is an individual such as mr smith in this case can simply move from place to place and avoid the registration requirement altogether and that's exactly what he did here well he knew california did change this law so whatever the situation was with california the change this law  would have been charged if you talk to his parole officer brought it in movies couldn't come up with him and he wouldn't have been charged probably he could have been charged the district attorney's position was that he could have been charged with failing to register this park bench thank you very much