government didn't claim a trial and doesn't claim on appeal that my client knew where that big clue that my quite knew that the fictitious tell was fifteen years all when he was using the internet to communicate with may not be that she was fifteen but that she was at her age or very young is does it does that what your position whether that satisfies you having a nd point is that all part of what a course of conduct saw about the fact that the knowledge think the factual part of the question is no the the communications over craigslist is not how i put my name that kelly was a minor or that she was fifteen and he had to know because the sexual activity would otherwise i wouldn't be communications not i asked when cell towers don't nest don't involve the internet and the evidence in this case is purely that the  interstate transportation but it has to coincide now this would be a different case if there were evidence that my client had been working for an underage person at the very beginning that she had to stop replying because her mom was indicate something about a huge they indicate something about age but they don't indicate particularly in light of is response when kelly says she is d fifteen and he says didn't read my dad it's it's my quite subjective mental state that had to be proved here and i little bit of it but if there were questions i certainly would like to answer them then let me just close by saying we also are arguing that the government's case fell to my friend mr riser over the car started a little more than twenty four hours the defendant here attempted to entice a minor to have sex with him when he believed d that the child's mother was away at work it began with receipts of the age regressed photograph on monday evening and it culminated in his arrest at a rapid city high school with blankets and we were ready to have sex with the girl even attempting to entice  concession we were not were lying solely on the interstate text messages to prove jurisdiction but we were lying as the indictment sat in as the jury instructions on the use of the phone and at all through with it when he was texting when his family was using its texting feature those messages again went through the internet the law enforcement agent did not have a phone and all the messages were being sent to the law enforcement agents computer connected to the internet and that's how the messages were returned so i think it's important to note that commerce clause for jurisdictional element does not require an understanding of how the technology works so it's our arguments and i think it's supported by case law that he does not have to know what's happening when he's pressing the buttons on his phone and where that thing is going how it's being routed there's certainly a possibility that when someone is texting if you study this that it's going to go through the internet whether it's a lot of course the person or not you just don't know most people have no understanding if i asked my grandfather or my grandmother how text was the use of the fam to get on craigslist and communicate through craigslist and then after he started texting it was the you said be the writing of the text messages through the internet yes traditional notices are or how did you and then and how did you prove that the text messages went through the internet when they were received we did not put on evidence about the components of the phone  we put out if you did not do that it's not your art that's what we did not do that in this case and i think when you look at what whether the crime has been committed you don't i don't think it's i think it's wrong to go back and say all right was this sentence this tax was that part of the enticement was that on the internet or sufficiently connected to the internet i don't think that's the way you look at it i think enticement when in a jurisdiction in a sense when you're talking about whether this occurred using interstate commerce it was a question on the enticement began when he got the age progressed photo of me what looks to me like an  grader but i was a good question all these are jury questions you view the evidence in the light was fearful to the jury verdict if a reasonable jury could have found it beyond a reasonable doubt the elements and he's got a picture of what looks to me like an books certainly as a young girl and it's in response to an ad advertising if you want to have sex with a biker and immediate response is to call her a sweet young girl i think and then it ends and she explains when they really get reconnected that my mom came home so i had to stop texting the sexual nature of this enticement began from the very beginning office he's talking about get when when you get serious oh me what do you mean serious serious about having fun that's all over the internet then when the the texting begins and and then the store i want to make clear to when he's texting that's going out and being received by the internet long forcefully egypt is using the internet to receive it and my argument is under the law he doesn't have to know that the internets involved at that point are either but he gets much more serious than you say minutes of him finding out that she's fifteen he's tired and he's talking about sex and trying to arrange for sex with him when he was a this kind of job took the chance he was on vacation and within less than twenty four hours he's there he's talked about what kind of sex he wants to have whether and so forth and i won't go into all the details but jurisdictionally i think it's enough that the choir was committed in our using the means ringback of interstate commerce which by that i mean a phone connected to the internet and the messages went through the internet there's no law that says the entire crime must have occurred or interstate commerce and i think that's the argument that's being made here there just has that it's also really important that there were no objections to the laws instructed there were no posts from oceans this is truly just a sufficiency of the argument case and it's an attempt case so the entire client does not have to be shown only have to show me attempted to entice a minor and that he used the internet to do that and there's no doubt that he did for a jury a reasonable jury would certainly conclude statutory language was for citing it in the jury instruction the statute does not require knowledge elements we're going to your state commerce similar to many statutes and many of this court's cases aggressive similar statutes likewise don't have a knowledge element tied to the interstate commerce nexus so this person use the internet used his phone connected to the internet to entice what he thought was a fifteen year old girl  one i don't think that the interstate transportation of the form or its components we would be sufficient are good statute unlike some other statutes like the child pornography statute they didn't try to