intends at the time that in this particular case if any across the state line that's where the men's rights act is raised after meet up in this particular case you know there are many ways to do that in a case was clear that many piece of evidence can be shown for that in this heavily on them or is ruling now some issues that we have with the text messages one we don't know where mr perkins was on that he sent some of these text messages were sent when he was already in the state of missouri he said each and every text message was in there still language in those texts regarding his anticipation of returning the cross state lines to missouri i would contend that the text messages that were looking at his particular case at the time when he crossed the line into missouri and i was very important distinction as opposed to just general intent people's feelings and thoughts change and they're oscillate from back and forth so i'm going to do something to i'm not going to people can change their mind and it's the government's burden here to show that he had that intent at the time he crossed council doesn't the record show that he had no work related reason for traveling to missouri and that he also had no romantic relationship with joe's mother away because that's actually where i was going next with yes you're right and the government tries to show intent not just through text messages and some of the other evidence but they try to show intent by explaining well the reasons why  a work related reason to be here and that came up through the evidence and he admitted as much in his interrogation with lot of course he did have a romantic relationship with the family it was not a sexual relationship with the mother saying he was he wasn't here for work he wasn't here for a romantic relationship or a sexual relationship rather what they're really trying to do is they're trying to shift the burden on that point to give a reason why w and that's not how this works they have to show that the reason that he was here was or the sexual contact with the minor and it was it doesn't have to be the primary or the dominant purpose the is was very clear about that it just can't be incidental but they have to prove that he had that inten at the time that he crossed the state line and they can't shift that burden to me or mr perkins this no no there was another reason they need to show that and this is these are the problems that we get into with this particular statute what i  but i still believe now is that essentially this was a state where sex were no questions about that this was a what a century state for sex was video of it there was no question that it occurred none of that was at issue and that's why a lot of that was stipulated to the trial when congress tried to get federal jurisdiction over crime like this the only way to really do a boy's criminalise is in ten of the time that you crossed the state lines and that really did place a high burden on the prosecution is a hard element prove not to show that he had intent at some time but the show that he intended a specific time now the cases that we see mostly like i said have communications that are close in time to the trouble itself but they can't just say there was intent at and believe it during here we have we have a number we have many prohibited acts over a standard period of time with the appellate probably back and forth between mis for a week or a month and say it's never going to ever happen again and then they have friends that are going on they find themselves at a bar and they indulge over again he doesn't have to just because you have to search will go on take doesn't mean that and that he came into th mandatory minimum we need evidence of specific intent at the time that the statute calls for which is when he crossed a reserve the rest of the time for a bottle  text messages start the defendant stated dude it's only been a little over a week and i'm having withdrawals a little she has me hooked then you go into some text messages in july of two thousand and sixteen marie talks about how he's going to wake up a victim to have some he also talks about the fact later on that he cannot wait to get back out there that statement cannot wait to get back out there shows his and ten it shows as mental state and that's exactly what the court put in its britain findings of fact that these text messages were very indicative of the defendant's mental state that even outside of these text messages in the district court made this clear in his finding of fact these were just some of the pieces of for the defendant was actually using the fact that tim also stated that the defendant would make a play or pay him sexual favors for things that she wanted material things and they called it a game that was called  carolina he led this mother along to continue to have access to effect he kept his mother strung along saying i love you i want to marry you as the record shows but he never once engaged in a romantic relationship of her he told her he could not break up with this fake titian's girlfriend he had in north carolina and he furthermore all of a victim's mother i want to marry you and i want you guys to move out to north carolina so we can be together but he never once took that family to north think the evidence was not just sufficient it was overwhelming in this case to show that this is a fan who had no connections or ties to missouri the only reason he was coming back was to when you continue to have sexual contact with  talking about the bad things he did when he was here and there and that was not at issue at any point during the trial or the question is what was intended and that he crossed state lines i still contend even after all of this that