please the court my name is cal potter or president of the appellant company curtain knowing that this court is familiar with the facts of the case i'd like to focus upon the overwhelming prejudice that occurred as a result of the admitting of reference to the other hundred or so stories that were contained upon the personal digital assistant or a palm pilots like device should never have been admitted to the dirt defense in this case the defense was that it was a roleplaying situation that the lack of intent correct your honor it was a lack of wasn't it quite clear that the evidence that you complain of shed light on the defendant's intent because there was no showing one of the concerns the court had was the same country all i could testify to was in fact he had downloaded information that was not for curtain had downloaded the information at some point in time but there was no showing that in fact it even read these  and what occurred and download them while he was asleep i mean i don't mean to make light of this but you have to make choices when you download that when you make choices but it doesn't necessarily show what the tach is and doesn't show what we're trying to deal with in this particular matter whether the intention in downloading these would also show that he was there in terms of the role playing or involved with this f b i agent and police officer who also was role flaying what their playing you say your client showed up instead when he sees an adult he turns tail and leaves i mean it seems to me close to preposterous i was looking for an adult so he looks at one and leaves it was the younger much younger person and what he was believing he believed it was a roleplaying situation on the computer and therefore when he walked into the suncoast bowling alley and didn't see any one of the fifth that age she left the fact the woman that was there there was a peaceful it was an adult wearing the clothes of the child that was he didn't read it he didn't show it to him there was no discussion over the internet and clearly very they have an opportunity because there are custodian all of the conversation over the internet it's an agent the full time there is clearly no child involved in this crime and so what you have is an agent who had the opportunity either through discussion or otherwise to talk about that so there was no showing of any nexus that isn't a strictly intertwined it's completely different the facts are completely different more importantly this deals with the most forbidden issues in society the most to boo dealing with a father and a child one of them talks about a nine year old becoming impregnated me clearly things that are earning impossible but things that were never discussed over the internet even with the the decore or the individuals but what we also asked for was an instruction dealing with a substantial step because what we're talking about here do really with what happened when he walked into the bowling alley and that he didn't talk to anybody he instruction you requested defining substantial steps it dealt with that must be unequivocal and it had to be a strong cooperation of guilt and those were the that was the language that we were asking know penn and teller that he was going there are trying to get a job the other issue then became with judge travis talking about in the bowling alley we asked for a small e ation instruction because there was videotape and then all of the all the wonder is testified that what the agent said to him was that that's not the guy and so what we wanted to be able to show him it was with the videotape that in fact he didn't have any contact with them and to surveillance video becomes theirs they're both sitting there and the surveillance is much different than any other case because they're i'm sorry i was there if he comes there or when they're in there telling the individual watch a watch and they're sitting there right there with him said hi other than that pretty much everybody agrees the guy walked in there she was there he eventually left and he didn't do anything so and so what is the big deal about the videotape how is that going to make any difference at all because the agent t stated that possession of a reading material that's legal is not a bad act is that term is defined within four or four bits nor is it relevant to conduct it with that's where i want to be able to well yes but it also says that and in this case i don't understand how this material could possibly be relevant to the act the beginning because there's no incest here there's  particular case that the issue is that you have the and that to engage in sex as an adult with a child you thieving if if there was a taste involving whether or not sex was consensual and there's dispute if the government happens to find a book in a person's library dealing with the issue of rape that that could go into evidence to show it wasn't consensual that it hypothetical to test what you said was around was relevancy what's a difference between having a book in the library and this case certain books are all books the value waited on what they are and how they relate to the looks in the back seat of the car about wherever the book has just show that the person has has access to it as access to those questions or questions that the court needs to make the decision is the gatekeeper as to whether they're relevant why isn't it plainly wrong to allow a book that you simply have in your possession in evidence without evidence even that you've read it first of all you can draw the inference the issue is whether you read it i speech here so if you're if you're balancing even assuming that there's some relevance which i don't see that assuming that there's some relevance then what's your argument that this wasn't so these charges on his admission that he fantasized about stats with children those stories although they involve in sassed in some of them certainly involved sacks of adults with children therefore the emotional appeal the jury already has then reacted her has an emotional appeal by his admission i stand to size with facts about sex with children what more what more harm can be caused by a story that basically says the same thing his admission his firsthand incest is even worse than fantasizing about sex with children you know at some point when things are so disgusting and they the candidate even more disgusting have such an emotional impact on i haven't heard that the on i have a question asked me did you read these stories i read no i did not read the details of my we going to or are you going to make this decision as to whether or not you're going to take the position that there's no harm no foul you haven't read them the jury did we haven't read them where are i don't like to read junk like this but it seems to me i'm never going to know whether or not they were harmful unless i read them is make correct can i do it just based on summaries you can take an inference of the worst case scenario based on the summaries look at it let me ask you a question you said something about changing the position you had in your brief as far as the prior similar act is concerned you still assert that this is a fo one for all three but it's much broader as to relevancy and relevancy just x let me ask you some other questions here for a second this information that you tried to get in started out with over one hundred stories or something like that and it was the government intended to put all of the stuff in is that right yes and how was that whittled down and how was it presented to the trial judge so the trial judge could understand what the trial judge was dealing with before making the decision at the end of day two there was a lengthy discussion with to the judge and look at this stuff before to start making the decision the court had based on the record the court had the stories that he read a wide one and a half of them yes you know how do you get away with reading just one and a half of them with evidence the prosecution make of it during closing argument and during the rebuttal argument the prosecution limited the reference to that was simply to reminding the jury to follow the limiting instruction of the court and tell gone way over his time if you would like to take one minute for rebuttal you may feel don't that's fine too thank you with matter just