i'm a few different browser firstly the facts inside there were multiple cameras or multiple hours of recordings and in that case it was a fourteen year old babysitter and a naked i recognize that i do recognize that but but if i can think a step back in point out the fact that the statute still says what the statute says and to my knowledge no argument she has no case has encountered this argument that these express elements were not met in what makes this case unique is that there's an express declaration by the fact finding that there is no pose no posture and no set of course that's not relevant to us because i refuse to know correct that is true and that is true but but again this case is unique because you don't have that in any other case to my knowledge is no trial court fact finder expressing these three things but i recognize your honor th overview and i was i'm happy to argue those three elements here of those three factors but again to to get back to the dos factors versus the statute and i recognize this court is limited in what it can do but there's not goodness the minor here is essentially mechanically changing clothes she's not acting seductively she's not disrobe and she's not acting in any other sexual manner do we have to say that we were this then in terms of this peeping tom aspect of the th factor in order to reverse the trouble here i would say no your honor i recognize and i replied prove that we do make an argument essentially and stresses though that those exact words objective you repeatedly so i think the the peeping tom perspective that moves away from what lamb born asks perspective virtually anything in which the of the person who's photographer videos be taken if they're not looking at the camera that's in essence of voyeuristic perspect satisfy himself it's it's a different perspective it is your honor but but then that's the problem we get into what's what's the defendant's intent there were you consistently i'm right can't look to the intended route right so that's where and i recognize this is i've assumed very difficult area of law and you're getting into many different factors in terms of the person who's who's being photographed the photographer then you have the viewer but that's a rd person so there's many different match order to find the correct truth it's a case by case basis and it's the overall determination but i recognize that but the one point i would take respect booth runner is is the fact that again there's nothing involving sexual conduct or sexual activity and that's that is whether we like it or not again recognizing that this is the distasteful time text there it's what matters that's new york the ferber i was in the supreme court decision which requires some sort of sexual conduct or activity by the minor into just we don't have it here happenstance position yourself with respect to the cameras or was their intentional focus there was the letter writer who was it was deliberately there was multiple cameras and one was deliberately set a waist level where where the miner was but again just just to go back very quickly if you have different you said a few minutes ago we would never have a case where if the victim isn't looking at the camera well that's enough as opposed to two huge cameras and lights and you don't look at the camera i think that's two different scenarios and here don't we know that given the fact that the camera was hidden yes of what yes so it's really goes i think the statute if the legislature want to clued in element obviously there's their seven subsections and it's obvious it's a very distasteful number of subsections of what those subject matters and tail sexual conduct that not just the mechanical changing of clothes in there's no case we stress this is no case in the entire united states where of voyeurism in terms of the young boy is sleeping in the rd circuit there on the his nudity incidental to his activity is activity was sleeping and here in season in land one then he in the incidental activity was talking in the water was was cleaning the sand out of the swimsuits and that's obviously where we can analogize of the situation the nudity here the partial nudity was incidental to the clothes changing and that's that's what differentiate legal arguments that we're making here so if there are no further questions thank your honor sure you will have a chance how great tech knology is today can take that very photo and do some work on it to make it look as if we're looking through a peephole at this girl let's say changing in a hotel so it's what would your position be and whether understand we could convert what is otherwise not child pornography into pornography based solely upon that family and in if your position you know doing things that suggest sexual point is your willingness to engage in sexual activity in other words she's knowingly being videotaped  relevance zero impact in this analysis and the prosecution in sheriff's corrector on the prosecution was rightly troubled by this video but confined by the station in the patients and video voyeurism the prosecution needs ial twisted this case into something it's not again mechanically changing clothes is simply not goodness there's no case that holds that and again the short