well actually i must somebody back in well i agree i agree that may be convenient from your from your client's perspective to have this i'm still trying to figure out why it's unconstitutional of legislative grace it is a policy decision made by the legislature that at some point certain crimes not all crimes should be crimes no longer should be prosecuted now the focal point of the ex post fa conference of the constitution is not on the actions of the district attorney or the actions of a particular victim in this case then an eight year old ryan the focal point is on the time of the enactment by the legislature as the supreme court said in starting up a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the ex post facto ex post facto clause when is applied to revive a previously time barred prosecution in other words a prosecution where there is no legislation whatsoever that allows for the prosecution you're saying you admit that if the time is expired they can extend it further if it is expired by operation of law so that there is no way in which the prosecution can be recommenced so you you make a distinction between the time when the law acted and  ex post facto clause is concerned again with the actions of the legislature here our legislature or the california legislature enacted a law that became effective january first one thousand nine hundred four not in two thousand and one or two california court of appeal interpreted legislative intent now where the court of appeal actually where a state court interprets its own laws that say that state courts interpretation should be given gifts finding actually it is thank you and in this case the courts specifically said the legislature was intending to create a seamless statute of limitations albeit one that did have some conditions conditions precedent but a statute of limitations that never expired until one year after the crime was reported to law enforcement by the victim you know otherwise it would have and would have frustrated the purpose of the enactment because you would have a conflict between eight hundred which allowed for a six year statute of limitations and eight o three which said ok you can only prosecute within that one year after the victim reports that the legislature had to do something to end that conflict or eliminate that conflict and in this case they did so by specifically saying it's a seamless statute and they say the legislature further said notwithstanding any other restrictions in other words the legislature the california legislature  acting this was intending to extend the statute of limitations not restricted pretty much left an extension correct your honor it's the same thing as if the legislature were to have eliminated a statute of limitations on this crime altogether as it has done for murder that's simply a legislative policy decision post nine hundred eighty seven claims and it said that such a law is ex post facto regarding the application to preen nine hundred eighty eight claims does not prevent the state from extending time limits for the prosecution of future offenses or for prosecution is not yet in this case the prosecution was not yet time barred in fact some of the actually not even occurred at the time that the legislature extended the statute of limitations we would ask that the court uphold the judgment of the district co california statute so that the supreme court of the united states the ruling then another factual alteration comes up and then the california court of appeals has a different nuanced argument