interoperability between different bodies of law here the question would be how would an individual judge decide whether the predicate relates to the generic federal offense is based on the degree of or you're not you're not riding on quite as blank a slight now after sullivan are you some of it and is and i mean it that i mean i think you've got to deal with solid then and then i think that we may have to deal with a panel previous language sexual abuse this court has never construed relating to child pornography when child pornography is defining twenty two fifty six that distinction is critical second sullivan itself did not feel bound by this court jurisprudence in twenty two fifty two a brown to the extent there is tension in our coffee and i believe there is it is this court's case law on the twenty two fifty two a well that should control but isn't the central issue in this case what relating to means and doesn't solomon help us on that issue no worries it doesn't have to be identical lucia but the social and i think everyone agrees that relating to has a broadening effect the question here is what is that effect when congress has made a legislative judgment about what constitutes child pornography that legislative judgment has incorporated and taken into account the supreme court's two thousand and two decision and ashok you see everybody agrees it has a broaden correct and the question for this court is what is that broadening of fact running our our answer here is it's twofold first it's sweeps in state offenses that contain the core elements of federal of the federal offense here defined by twenty t related to me and this court has a lot of basis dealing with what how to construe relating to in the context of sexual abuse from twenty to fifty two a and the wave court approach there where sexual abuse was not statutorily defined was to look to relating to insurers being the generic federal definition there after that scenario but there after the court applied stri six means and there are five types of conduct that are covered by twenty to fifty six there are eight types of conduct that are covered by three eleven eleven and in that context the question is what does relating to me and another problem and i do want to preserve just a of sexual contact of my wife a possession distribution sale receipt transportation of child pornography if that reading congress spent all of those things would be related to each other and it would have been simply enough to say defined the federal generic predicates as it quillan to it and state the feds that is listed there in the statute but it also includes offenses that are related to the offenses that are listed there this this court has twice now recognized california definition of child pornography it's still most books to the definition of we're not trapped in our twenty to fifty six that it's it's virtually indistinguishable those are the words from the ninth case what we're dealing with is a statute that is so close to the definition of child pornography that is provided and under federal law but the question is the fact that it's very close in definition  making relating to a lady who does not seem to be so naturally doesn't mean sort of almost if she was to have just some other kind of relationship where the court found that attempt is relating to the substantive offense or things related to me almost but not exactly i think that's a common sense way of interpreting relating to it and then the second argument that i'd like to make  s that i think that the definition of child pornography and the penalty provision of twenty to fifty two a it is not does not have to be interpreted in light of twenty to fifty years and here's the main serious said seven years before which is that and former recognizes that even a state offense that doesn't share all the elements of the federal predicate offense that's listed in subsection b can also said the defendant possessed child pornography under the definition and with the defendant pleaded the tall form also said that he was just playing to the element of possessing child pornography and so the records were to fail that my guess is that that is almost allegations that would describe the actual pornography so that we would know whether it fit within the federal different definition or not they compare that to allegations of you know village health safety code violations that include controlled substances in comparison of the offenses and question i mean that they went through it rather carefully they explained how that relates to was there anything wrong with the way they thought that through well yes i think that the it's simply not analytically tenable to say even though there are two missing elements were nonetheless going to say that this stands in some relation to the generic federal fence but i will say that it was very context specific and the reasoning there to start apply here because the court specifically said that the missing element relates to the culpability of the defended not to the harm of the mind of the minor here we have congress delineating what conduct most harms minors from twenty to fifty six so to the extent that was the underpinning in terms of the reasoning i don't think it applies here in terms of army ho and just hammer those were memorandum dispositions army hope neither of the arguments here were not presented nor considered by the