miner through her mother constitute a violation of twenty to forty to be the st message was that he was excited to see her nd message was to give her a hug each day mr not constitute attempts to persuade induce or coerce the miners they're not mr hostler and the alleged mother amanda about what kind of gift she might like in that she likes elsa from frozen and he describes that he's bought a gift for her what m to where you have the communications with the parent and attempt to have the direct persuasion or enticement or coersion once you meet with the person once you meet the minor in person i think that's where that would go we don't he didn't ask communications be passed on to the minor it's clearly that all of those activities from buying the gifts to you know things that she would like would go towards the ventral assent that the minor would give when they met but that's the  category it's not the rd the rd is focused on what are the attempts or what are the actions across the channels interstate commerce and instrumentalities that speak to the you know coersion of entitlement and those are being directed towards the mind of the council and i must say i have no idea what macmillan categories might be but i do care about the language of the statute and the statute talks about a person knowingly persuades induces entices or coerces you seem to construe all of those as four synonyms for the word worse why would that be the right way to understand that sequence words often entails gifts of well whatever it is the person to be persuaded wants or it can involve money it doesn't involve overbearing somebodies will if i go to the grocery store i persuade them to part with a package of toilet paper by giving the money i don't coerce them you why isn't that equally true here because that tends to persuasion which wards of the parent not towards the minor to the parent had acted as a broker they were they were the grocery the parent was the groceries i'm the if i'm the dallas cowboys i try to persuade dak prescott to provide another year of service by approaching his agent and offering him money that's that's how persuasion happens in the world and again i don't i don't understand why that sequence of words boils down to just four different ways of talking or overcoming someone's will because in that act prescott you're asking that you know send this message to prescott this is this is what i want and in that sense prescott is that the intended beneficiary of the one hundred and fifty million dollars in this situation amanda the parent is intended beneficiaries no different than the agent well why do this and i mean going back to that millan i will give you the three situations that it outlined although i think they were just a way of trying to make sense of the cases but the rd one was a direct attempt to use the parent as an intermediary to convey the message to the have to say and i am now asking you to pass this along to the child that would be on duly formal and you know there's all this discussion does she like obese men and she  want to meet me there's a lot of trying to entice via the parent the child to engage in this encounter and believe me i am very sympathetic to what i understand your overall argument to be we don't want this statute to just boil down to a statute to prohibits arranging for minors to have sex with other people using the instrumentalities of commerce it has pacific words they should mean something but anti is is a pretty broad word and gifts and you know physical attractiveness and other sorts of things seem to me not strangers we think of that isn't type thing and i agree with you  i but i think it goes towards the enticement of one they finally do mean well and that's where it would because otherwise the distinctions are collapsed and one chunk all activities and lester in the most mercenary sense are going to be does that final meeting when that when the person will finally meet the miner and have sex with her but let me let me just push back a little bit i can certainly see if the only thing that your husband was talking about with amanda was the price you know it will be x dollars and she says no i want to weigh in and they haggle about the price i can certainly see that gracie is not involved in that she's not going to see the money something like an else address you know we're not being too fat seems to me directed or at least a trier of fact could view that as directed through the parent to the minor and so there is a meaningful distinction here i think the meaningful distinction and one sense it's a checklist of what the officer said you know are you you know are you obese and i know i'm not obese are you know i are you short no i'm tall like those aren't things that are meant to persuade the minor if we think of this statute as it's as it was written why they were looking at a room where these obese or not she probably wants the money she probably does but she also doesn't want to deal with and look this is a grotesque analogy but she also doesn't want to deal with the push back of her daughter it's all a fiction but there is a sense of like i'm going to you know her tail this down to what my daughter will accept you know and in that sense she has incentive as well to make it so that host later matches what her daughter might want but that doesn't change the statute what the statute demands the statute demands that he's directing this twar just a minor and directing it across the two dinners for mentalities of interstate commerce and that's not what he's doing he's simply engaging in the negotiations and that the mother is telling him hey when you do finally get here here are the things that you should also do or hear the things that would make it a little bit more attractive and i don't think that saying you're not obese is sort of is enticing or coercing is no different than trying to jump right to that because i have a question of statutory interpretation here which is not part of that insurmountable obstacle and i'll be very frank with you that i am concerned that p stings we've gotten pretty far afield from attempt to persuade induce entice or who worse i totally take the point these are all the alternatives an attempt to persuade the minor and attempt to induce the minor and attempt to entice the mire but that needs to be something other than just i've arranged the transaction because then you've read all of those words out of the statute you have nothing directed toward the minor i understand the court concerned and i in this case that is not what the fed is not what the evidence shows and that's not what the the government's interpretation of the statute is in this case you actually have a defendant who is trying to entice persuade induce the miners to have sex with them and he's using the parents as a conduit to that as the district court properly characterized the evidence this defendant was attempting to communicate with gracie using the parent as a conduit to show that he was not obese that he was kind because he was found that he was generous so that she would agree to have sex with him and i can point to a specific example that sort of in a nutshell e and then he asked is gracie nervous about meeting or have you not told her so at this point he doesn't know what gracie's mental state is and he's asking what what's her what's the reaction what is she you know what she's thinking she going to sent to this and pearson tells them she knows about you but we have i haven't told her because i don't know if you're actually going to come like i do you know if you back out or not and he said sir i'd like to put something down meaning i would like to pay some money because there were some conversations about him paying rent and some other things helping him family financially so he said i'd like to put something down and he said that in part to show pearson that he's serious but he also i want to show great  i want to offer you this money to show great feet how a person is supposed to act and treat her because if this works out and i think it will she can come down and centimes me this is him attempting to induce gracie directly not induce pierce and not negotiate with pearson but induce gracie to agree have sex with him and then he says what was her reaction when you told her because i want her to want it otherwise you would not be enjoyable for either party in other words  i want to obtain her assent and if you look at the communication between hostler and pearson as a whole it is very clear that he is not just negotiating with pearson but he is attempting to make  gracie so that she will agree to meet him and have sex with him doesn't matter that there doesn't seem to be any evidence that any of these messages aside from the two very innocuous ones give gracie a big hug for me  will tell me the feeling is mutual so other than that is there any evidence that this gets beyond amanda and gets through to gracie i realize we're living in this fictional world where where is the evidence that say and i told gracey this for you or something of that sort well st of all i would say that that's not required obviously if it's not it's the defendant's intent that he intends that the information be communicated to to gracie and again based on the context of all of the communications he was expecting amanda to be passing information along to her trying to entice the adult who's the intermediary so to speak so we need to make sure that we have proof that he's trying he's tempting to purr to entice the minor and otherwise again we've just collapses statute into a very different law correct and again it's clear from the communications that he is attempting to get the parent to communicate information to gracie right so he says i want to offer you money to show gracie that you that i'm serious and that i'm a generous person so that show agreed to have sex with  him he at one point asked a face and started to chatter e mail with her and he said you know i want to talk to her i have presents for her he knows that amanda pierson told great you that he has presents for her and he can be home from school today i want you to check with her because i want to do what she wants to do when we when she when i get to wisconsin i want to you know do fun things with her so i need to know from her what kinds of fun things she wants to do again he's trying to make himself enticed into grady and he's using pierson to communicate with grayson because he's not allowed to communicate directly with with great speed pearson won't let him there's another point early in the conversation where pearson says to him something like just because we want to make sure we're on the same page or something like that so it's clear that she is not he's not just negotiating with pearson pearson is in i believe in judge easterbrook where he's a broker p is a broker for gracie and she is negotiating on behalf of greasy and and it's very clear that hostler is expecting that that information is a two way street that he's providing information pearson pearson providing it's a great and back the other way and this case really is indistinguishable from mcmillan it really is as a macmillan hostler responded to an ad for portability by a parent offering a willing to child for that this court identified three specific communications that it saw is evidence of attempted incitement and those same types of communications are are exist here in both cases the defendants offered something they thought would be enticing to the child in mcmillan it was a picture of the defendant's penis in this case possibly hostler offered president he offered specifically money to demonstrate to gracie that on how she ought to be treated he offered assurances that he was no bs he offered you offered to come to wisconsin because gracie was more comfortable with that he promised to be gentle and go slow he offered great two trips to texas again all of these things were intended to be enticing and someone you know early on he's yes to face time or something to verify and that could be potentially viewed as an attempt to verify that gracie was real or that pierson wasn't a law enforcement officer but it could also reasonably be viewed as an by him to communicate directly to gracie to make sure that she was in fact willing to have sex with him before he leave money to come to wisconsin and then he you he later requests to chat or email directly with her and and it's important to know that hand in the context of a conversation in which he asked pearson whether or not gracie knew was coming and she and pearson said she was skeptical he was actually going to follow through so she hadn't told great yet he was going to she was probably going to do it that night so in response to th says is there any way i could chat or email with her do i have to wait till i get there i'm sure she's going to be thrilled i'm going to be bringing her presents it's impossible to view that as anything but an attempt by hostler to try to entice gracie directly and indistinguishable from her quest my made by the defendant in the killing which this court found was the position evidence of enticement and finally in both mcmillan in this case the defendant asked whether the parents talked to the child about it because we're asked that question several times have you talked to greece yet what was her reaction what since gracie think about it all this is not a case where the defending is an tearing about the child's mental state or uninterested or oblivious to the evidence here's shows that very focused on great these mental state and whether or not she's ascending to have sex with him he really wants her to be onboard with this and we know that because he says so i want her to want that i want her to do this voluntarily in other words i want to gain her son all tried this case and i don't remember all of those statements that the government has now put out there the court that that through the trial found only two statements where mr hollis later did that and i also directed court's attention to page thirty three of the trial transcript where the detective says no that was to verify whether or not i was real his attempt to face time so i'm page thirty three i would also add your honor that this is distinguishable from mcmillan mcmillan the defendant actually put out an ad here hos responding to an ad it's this it's a distinction with a difference because there he's trying to persuade the sixteen year olds and mcmillan the sixteen year old father is let me have sex with your daughter and we don't have all of the transcripts and everything that was said there was it was a jury trial i think two days and the court picked out the lines that it thought but it was clearly a backing out because hey would she like this is this what she needs to be persuaded and they didn't you can use the word persuaded an opinion but it's there that th e pinas pick is going to be something that might induce her and here we don't have that we don't have anything that says she's unwilling gracie's on willing and now i would like to sweeten the deal i would like to tell you something that would and i certainly mr bug me let me just know though that the trial court's findings of fact to which we owe deference said exactly the opposite of what you just said he says which leads to the nd reason to reject this theory of defense just doesn't match the inducing over the channels interstate commerce with what actually has to happen when they meet and he's very clear with that everybody has to assent he still has to give her assent you know at the at the moment they meet and that's what that's geared towards is that final meeting  everything because really mcmillan to the nd category you have to have a sense when you go and meet this person this child and if that's all that that's demanded then everything violates the statute because all of the conduct  know with the agent and with amanda is going towards when they finally meet and think we're going we're going to have to stop it at that point i believe we certainly have your your argument so thank you mr bug