to the effect of the position of each individual feels videotape photograph or other similar visual reproduction or depiction by computers in violation of this section constitutes a still single and separate it more along the lines of the same individual has a number of controlled substances like pills like ecstasy jam so he's got like a box and there's like ten of them in there and and list as if the code doesn't say e not true because otherwise he he he's kind of giving them away in britain so your argument about you know if you get to the similar images and you want to treat them for something we don't know that he wants to do any trading we just know that he adds these three folders that have two distinct images the three fold your hands one of the original one of the original two correct that's what we know here three anything is in big us and therefore we use the rule of law in a team because we cannot determine what the legislature meant when it said and that is totally different based upon head it's not an instantaneous and then over event you have these pictures that are hanging around forever your question was will what if you did intend to disseminate that's not the purpose the only supreme court has said it's dangerous to have this stuff hanging on someone's possession because if any time it could be disseminated at the only according to this evidence then and you know it could i understand the good humor and i understand the legislative issue but we're talking about this evidence he has three files and two pictures that how does charging him with two separate offenses and disappearing rather than you know what may happen in the future how computer programs which a half inch one of those pictures even the two that of the same qualify as triggering events even if you don't one of those they clearly do under the definition  done all on the same day correct but different times during the same day and night we know that the one on one crime says in separate overt act regardless of how closely related but to go to your question which you know i don't really know but i understand their concept but nobody asked the question of what can happen to these we the evidence here is that he possessed these that's what he was charged with and he put them in three different files even though there are two different pictures nobody said well can anybody access that can he take those out again what can he do with those one through such a survey of one so any child so in other words if it's the same child different acts different poses then there's separate charges if it's the genius sucker the funds from possession reproduction is a separate offense yes but i thought you said that it's it's in the presumption of intent to disseminate and the second even what they're trying to do is prevent the cut off the photograph and it's if it's copy made two guys are made of that same four grand at the same time now it's not exactly what we have here but if and if it's like a click and drag and you copy it into two folders at the same consuming media there would be a very different question i would say the way to parse that would say well can the same time can't be so closely related and i guess if you're saying if i took a picture and put it in the xerox and pushed him and it went ten ten ten ten ten ten ten that would be very close question but i would come back with the let's go back to the digital age tone and if you could if you're doing like a click and drag on your computer and having it for one folder to two to separate folders but in doing it at the same time is that and so the same image is at the very same time it's going into two separate folders is it is that one every click of the mouse defining a distinct position you could define it by like a session where i'm logged into the cloud for a four minute session however many i transferred during the time of the same image and i'm still having some problem with this how is punishing him twice for the same image affecting our impacting policy how is it going to accomplish that policy drying up the sources and drying up child pornography when he you know i don't see him twice i mean we have one he image and one image alone that can be disseminated but we don't have any evidence that it will be we don't have any evidence right now that it can be seen by anybody else i mean this isn't a case where we have additional evidence so how is this one particular image in two separate files two separate offenses and obviously that's not your position but that's how you know how do you specifically deal with that argument we need other than to say it all happened at one time but we have two pictures well