intentional intentional that's not unwitting and so i would argue that a defendant must be first aware that a valid court order that he is consciously disobeying not unwittingly inadvertently or mistakenly deserving and in this case colloquy mr here alone indicates that he is not aware of a valid court order he says in the plea colloquy i was confused by the court orders there was one court order that required his surrender on march fifth there was another court order that his attorney interpreted for him that required his surrender on may twenty fifth mr indicates that his attorney told him he had until may twenty fifth to self surrender and that he was making plans to do so and then his attorney specifically told him that he was a fugitive and that judge lake surrender order was not yet in effect and that might just be hyperbole to a certain extent except in this case we have the declaration from attorney kenneth owens who says yes i told here last that they were not fugitives i told here last that judge legs order was not in a fact and confirms all of the representations made during behavior when the marshals came well i think that was mr birch's a u s a virtue's factual predicate for the for the plate and that was not proven i mean that was what his proper was that that they were at a house that someone said they weren't there all of the evidence in the record that has been sworn to indicates that they believe that they had until may twenty fifth to self surrender and that i  it's a difficult question for me to answer simply because i'm not i don't have i don't have the spilling of all those facts as to what happened that is certainly what mr burch reported i can't attest to the factual accuracy of them but the argument we're making is not whether they had an imperfect advice of counsel defense or whether they had a factual defense to those charges what we're arguing is that they did not understand the elements of the expense which they were charged with and that is the focus of this says we didn't think the court order was in effect with an attorney's affidavit saying i informed them they were in fact clearly raises and i think confirms the fact that these defendants did not understand none of the elements they were informed of the elements they didn't understand the elements and they certainly didn't understand the elements in relation to the facts of this case so they were given out four month extension of their stands and there was four months i think the problem the problem with what happened in court in this plea is that everyone treated this offense like a strict liability offense if you had knowledge of the court order and you didn't show up it's a violation of thirty one forty six and that is not the that is not the law the law requires willfulness and knowledge of a valid court order now whether it was a good deal or not whether they would have gotten an eight month sentence if they had gone to trial and for me is not was not the amount of the sentence not not whether eight months versus four months was a good deal the question is did these defendants understand what they're pleading guilty to your and your colleagues t the courts to give this information and to ascertain whether or not they believed there was such an offense and whether or not they had some reason not to surrender certainly based on your allegations and believe that they didn't have to surrender it was the hearing such issues as the behavior of the defendants could be raised such a hearing to determine if there was any prejudice to the advice of counsel the issue of whether or not the offer that was made was was intelligently accepted in lieu of going to suggest that i know of no case law that allows a harmless error in like a prejudice to extend over such subsequent events that could have occurred or could not have occurred here he turn good morning here since also united states on the first issue of the knowingness and voluntariness of the pleat counsel now seems to be arguing that it wasn't that defendants weren't adequately informed of the elements but that they of being a full defense to the charge and if that being the reason why they got a four month sentence instead of the minimum twelve month sentence that they would have gotten had they gone to trial and the reason why we're here talking about voluntariness is because that is the question before this court we're here on an appeal from a twenty to fifty five petition which means that the standard of review is whether there was a constitutional error or jurisdictional error or something that affected the fundamentalists of the of the procedures and also because there was a guilty plea entered here the question at the end of the day is whether the defendants would have played guilty had they known of effective assistance of counsel claim as rich classrooms pointed out there's simply nothing ineffective about what council did here counsel entered into a perfectly reasonable plea agreement in fact it was incredibly favorable  half of the minimum half of the minimum sentence the defendants would have gotten under the plea agreement that is very effective representation and in addition there's no showing a prejudice because again there's no showing that the defendants would not have any of the guilty plea had they had the court inform them or the court used the word willfulness during the please help me additional information on the mens rea after the event he said that they had to be aware of the order he had to say that they knew that they had to surrender to the order and that they knowingly failed to it that all of those things mean the same thing and that is what they hear a lot still which is they knew there was an order out there for them to surrender they knew that they had to surrender pursuant to that order and they didn't do it and one of the reasons why they out there for their arrest and instead of going in pursuant to that warrant they chose to follow the advice of their counsel and ignore the warrant that was out there for their arrest now if they knew there was a warrant  second reason that they had to know was because before every time when they didn't have to surrender pursuant to just like the original order just like had issued a new order saying you don't have to surrender and if they could just ignore a judge l order then why did he have to issue a new one every time they had appeals judge like denial of their motion for bail previously and they still had to be out on his plate or that time it different this time so we would submit that all of the evidence on the record demonstrates that they did know what the elements of the offense for they believe that they had this is by the counsel defense but they he was confused of the issues he was unaware of the court order and that he relied on his counsel and in in in in failing to surrender and that wasn't willful there is a ton of evidence in the