charge from the district court the fighting force in this case the fighting force in this case that's what you're here to talk about yes the appropriate charges would have been probably just if i were managing had only the case in size and stature and that she was quite consecutively and put it really about that and she made absolutely no complaints at all or with respect to how she was he forced himself on me he had a hand on my chest and he penetrated my vagina with his hand is that force with the satisfy stationary one because testimony you know what the specter of the testimony of the alleged victim was clear in suggesting that she was not offended by that touching in fact it was almost like a forty one as satisfied by a showing of the use of physical force sufficient to overcome restraining order to injure a person if you agree that that's been a commonly accepted definition of the element have not is has been recognized had occasion to actually define force in the context of the statute but do you have a problem with the parts of the of the trial transcript we are the alleged victim did not suggest we never suggested that she was offended there he said stop it she says stop she said from a common law history where there was some suggestion that stop didn't mean stop were at least that consent were only a demonstration of consent could be from the mere failure to say anything in the weight of objection i mean isn't this entirely contrary to statutory content as well as the recent history we have to look at what's happening that evening if you if you were honest the mind from the it's clear that in her testimony at various points she said when asked whether she felt offended by the touch her response was no again this this back to her interpretation of what stopped me that i'm not suggesting to be funny at all and this context but for her to say  stop it probably within the context of a couple who culture and the community stock was reading stop at that point it was a suggestion listen i'm dealing with you a play with him for he moments but i want to go for it that's how i interpret it and maybe and maybe i'm i'm absolutely dreaming or i'm wrong and this  that's point about this being invited there and how the government submitting that supplemental appendix to the party submissions to the district court with respect to what your instruction that's on supplemental appendix seventy four to seventy five and the violation of their rights bodily integrity that all it had to find was a disparity in size or course the power this in this trail for the aggravated sexual abuse the jury had to find force the jury was instructed that these were factors they can consider and that is supported by the saying physical force officially to restrain the victim and in that instance a disparity in size and course that hour is certainly relevant to that lighting if the defendant is five to one hundred fifteen pounds and the victim is six one hundred ninety five pounds then these integrity next to a finding of force in section twenty two forty one so in looking at section twenty two forty one in isolation there certainly wouldn't be an issue with conflating two different requirements one not just because although i could find was the definition that courts have university adopted that includes restraint that comes directly from the house report it's footnote fort fifty four a on page fourteen of that of that record and congress was attempting to negate several things  that happened in the sexual abuse context wrong to focus on the victims conduct which unfortunately is an issue in this case as well this idea that a failure to resist or a failure to be more aggressive in fighting off a rate is somehow indicative of a lack force and in this particular context congress needed that they said that force that is sufficient under this statute is that which is sufficient to overcome restrain or injure a person and so whatever congress  sections pretty to set out a violation of deprivation of civil rights and the missing your violation requires just an unwanted sexual contact that doesn't wire a sexual act in the way that section twenty two forty one's enhanced penalty by reference does and that is a big distinction in itself because if you have a corrections officer in this instance had shot entered her cell and simply aggressively groped her that would have constituted a miss in your bio ration but the fact that this progressed to the that comes from section twenty two forty one is not the equivalent of a lack of consent section twenty two forty one intentionally does not have a consent requirement in the circuit actually just for weeks ago opined on this distinction between consent and section twenty two forty one saying that while consent is not an element it's certainly relevant to the calculus because on the wrong and it's a defense if the defendant is able to convince a jury that it was a consensual act that distinction with a press officer comes into an indian he says to her i will take away your privileges for visitation and in for telephone calls i'm sorry say that my time thank you if he grants take away these privileges that make life better