interiorized separate from the owner of the threat that is the prosecution has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that there was this harassment and they have to show there was a threat made with the intent  the harassment is also separate from the other possible theory of stalking under the statute which is repeated probably and it's an important distinction because although we could rationally understand how someone could  secretly followed stalk and assets and learn about it after the fact from perhaps neighbors or friends and become concerned you know that you could be harassed in any  california law we have to follow it a lot what how do we deal with the california courts interpretation of what you want in the district court below actually just cited and we do not dispute several cases that if it's an our case has none of those hallmarks far outside the whole purpose of the statute far removed from every other case because while my client supposedly was harassing that is annoying terrorizing mr spielberg  think i think the reason where the state court and then the district court has gone awry is that they may have been unable to maintain in mind that there are two elements there's a threat and harassment and we've never contended no one recently could contend that  threat has to be instantly conveyed and received that would mean essentially only face to face or phone threat on the victim picks up of course you can make a threat and later you could read it but the idea of harassment i think any commonsense interpretation whether it's sexual harassment in the workplace or harassment bullies in the schoolyard it's something where somebody is in your face and you can't get rid of that hearing or argument would be this just delivered were inside his house but didn't ha the terrible threats so you have someone who really is stalking someone and is at pains to make a person know they're being stalked we don't have any of that in this case what we have is my client going to mr spielberg there's no caves none now in california but based on the research i've done at the request of the district court in any of the fifty states there's never been a case remotely like this one where conduct was unbeknownst to the victim until after it ceased supported harassment that it doesn't even constitute a threat but it's the single most disturbing portion of the case i think because the harassment in the stalking statute is precisely aimed at addressing some sort of conduct that the prosecutors could never before reach the stuff you know if you had an attempt of some other crime you couldn't get them off the streets they created this crime the statutory creation with specific elements based on terror and getting in someone's things were repeated following they didn't have it here not by any stretch but it gets worse even assaults and when he was stopped on one occasion and they searched his is this person briefcase and car they found the so called rape kit on the scene that reamer used that phrase that the prosecutor later used that the duct tape by the private security forces and police always in custody mainly for the month prior to the indictment period mr gorman says i became obsessed increasingly obsessed with having some sort of a homosexual relationship w they also sort of relating has this obsession great fantasy all of which is then conveyed in these two phone calls to mr spielberg well that could well scarier and i'm not here to argue against that that's ised mr spielberg if anything did you have somebody who although never crossed on his property never talked to him certainly in the senate seat and he had some very strange very disturbing obsessions and fantasies directed at mr spielberg but state as involved just strange that the facts were the worst conduct was not the conduct or the statements imply or otherwise of the defendant but of people who are essentially investigating what they think might be starving behavior or phone calls on seventeen to twenty nine like even if we put that aside i think this records and i think that the visits themselves that is without disclosing the rape is just a visit strolling are misrepresenting any number of circumstances with the the religious zealots and i'm subjected to in hollywood when they ring my bell or persistent salespeople who will frequently tell you anything to get to talk to the lawyer who they think can buy books or office suppl but worse than that this jury didn't have an opportunity and my client didn't have an opportunity to have that kind of just under six forty six point nine what the jury had what my point was subjected to was information about his visits and then a boat load of evidence about homosexual rape obsessions with spielberg time up making his wife watch none of which was offense conduct all of which went before the jury so it's one thing for the district court to say i'm confident that if it wasn't called the rape kit then handcuffs duct tape and box cutter you don't have to be an einstein to put together that might involve some sort of conduct you wouldn't want to be near and you know i can't be came back one again on the eleventh found across the street doesn't even mention spielberg is told to beat it again and he does but doesn't mention spielberg comes back again seven am on the eleventh found a few bushes a few blocks spielberg you know maybe a mental health issue but and it does reference spielberg but again no friends of any sort and no request to even see spielberg and then finally comes back at five pm found on a public street two blocks from the state times for just two times that he was outside the premises on the premises and accurately and completely being conveyed spielberg who knows what happened but that's not what i understand there instead your argument is whatever harassment is that it has to be by actual conduct that we judge it that is if a man walks after a woman every time she comes out of the house harassment so you have to set aside what the person intends to do so you might not know that they have a gun in their way span or whatever as long as as long as what they're doing doesn't show anything then the right and whether you're saying the part of that is that without speculation the victim has to know that this person is going to rape and this person is going to attack  merely being around the premises or following the person alone that's insufficient popping on the premises or following the victim becomes aware of it could've been on the context of history of the individual that would cause you a great deal of concern but again in our him you can see that once he found out what he did find out that he felt harassed at least enough to protect his mother and i get additional guards around his home why i would want to concede solve harappan that beg the question probably take the rug that raymer somebody would have to report to mr spielberg that's not the test and the difference between known or should've known and specific intent is critical from the process perspective and it's a meaningful distinction beyond a doubt because in whether the victim can learn of the conduct through a third party are really interpretations of state law and these were issues of state law which result adversely to petitioner these questions were issues of state law because the involved interpretation of the statute and the state court opinion actually goes into looking at the language of the statute to see whether there is a contemporaneous requirement or whether a third party cannot be the vehicle for relaying the conduct to the victim and the state court found those requirements wanting based upon the statutory language as this court has repeatedly indicated on federal habeas review this court is bound by californias interpretations of its own that this case would not be that extreme example i could certainly foresee that such an example could exist but it wouldn't be in this case that there was a sufficient quantum other than to satisfy the elements and the elements into fine an there wouldn't be a case with there i doubt i doubt a jury would find that the victim down here i don't like that conceptually and that's price me is logical to conceptually what's the difference between that situation where you sold a house and that he's not living there is in a in a foreign country well since actually what's the differ the difference is that he will return to that right that is primary residence he will return he rely upon the information that was given by the lawyer which was added apparently information was added that he had found out through investigators that is true  that first conversation which when the lawyer and mr spielberg heard only six days after the last incident which was before the defendant really made the bulk of comments and statements regarding his intent to