begin my argument with what would you consider to be the strongest issue in mr gas yes case the fact that the facts presented by the state were insufficient for the trial court to find the defending guilty beyond a reasonable and in this case in the indictment say tend to obtain a person directly attempt to obtain a person that's a general attempt statute that might be used in a burglary case for very easy going but what you have to understand about mr gas you and when we talk about those text messages is a limited understanding of the english language that was evident to the trial court by the fact that he is required to hold his interpreter throughout and wasn't it was also evident to the officers when they searched his phone after they arrested him only to text messages on communications or conversations on a nurse no other communications or conversations with minors or attempts to obtain minors there was no child pornography on his phone is the word of one word brunette the same thing that a few years in the ad of that woman represented to be eighteen years of age well then why does he need to he has for a picture eighteen that's what was represented to him in the ads and that's what he responded to in that text message only that which was represented to in the at the what's represented in the end is  minor was required and if you look at the i p i for soliciting a minor a person is required him back general difference and i'm saying that that is the difference and wolf that they did show photographs of somebody that was purported to be a minor it was an undercover officer or a doll female that was portrayed in the role of a there was something someone but not the person who was to be engaged it was just tough but if you're in the constant scene that in mind for somebody portraying a minor and sting operations were nasty saying that you have to put a minor in a position of risk but the statute requires that there be a person or somebody portraying that person we we have  either here and i think by having my wiring or something along that lines it protects the defendant and it makes sense with who way the statute and the charges were wri she said it was her context it understanding that minors were involved nothing specific and then again back to the text message there's nothing specific that shows that mr guy she clearly and  unequivocally understood that the am was now somehow changed to be all minors nothing in his response and his understanding based on those responses or his conversation shows that he attic and testified that nothing was placed in the end by that indicated that this advertisement in any way shape or form had anything to do with sex with a minor he was aware of the nerves and phrases that could be put in  someone's attention with a photograph of what was purported to be an eighteen year old mormon but the follow up does not appear to be related to that and in fact at the very end of the text is there an issue  himself young so the fact that he's referring to an unpaid job doesn't mean that he's referring to someone that is under the age of eighteen he never said anything text message or anything more  yes and his response to the language that he uses in his response is all language that comes from the ad which is for an eighteen year old t response to that is that maybe they're twenty twenty two or eighteen or something of that sort and they're her daughters but risky because it risky to send out a picture of a child a child for stark's is that is what they're talking about and i think that there is only one radisson when you read those two in conjunction and titian only we have to look at what happened at the hotel and there is kind of a circumstantial case and that goes to his comprehension he was told how to get there he was told an address he was told to bring is was appropriate to the transaction that he thought was occurring everything shows his comprehension down the mine included what happened at the hotel and when he put that together under you know a reasonable doubt standard and review there lmost any of the cases that i can find and more than that we also have of course the general attempt statute and on to there's a case of people versus kirshner in which they look to the general attempt to determine what the  intended it to make the distinction he makes it somehow it would be ok and that's what will fit dismantle all the time if we had a protest person somewhere you know somebody pretending to be the victim that that doesn't make any sense i mean because you have this really an absurd construction down where you still couldn't complete the act so how would that in any way promote a policy of any sort that you have to have a person any person being you know or acting as a minor it doesn't do anything it doesn't change is subject to intent to complete this action with a minor that's what we're looking at that's what the crime taking a substantial step he not only prepared for this he got his confidence he got the right money he drove through a snowstorm he ended up in the right hotel he did everything he could and you know and make contact he did everything he could to complete his cri basically and the fact that he's going to be acting under a misapprehension of what the true facts are has as actual actually no bearing at all on whether he committed this crime and it really goes to his objective of ted and that is what the  you're going to see followed of all the instructions it did all the things that he was asked to do because he was doing what he was doing was so listening a prostitute he knew he was soliciting a prostitute he knew that he was soliciting an eighteen year old prostitute of course he was going to do what they tell him to do say what they tell him to say when he arrives at a door to get there that doesn't in any way bolster the argument that he knew that polish understands this acronym that was interjected by an officer without any explanation as to what it meant somehow changes his intent and now makes him understand mr g understand that it involves a minor is is clearly wrong i mean the the officers it's their their testimony and what they've interviewed is what their context and understanding of what their messages and what their conversations meant it wasn't anything about what mr gaffney understood or understood what it to mean they were playing roles all day they knew that when they just those numbers when he's looking for eighty it could be the ohio girls it could be anything or it could be something that he just glossed over because then then when he gets there unbeknownst to  reason to ask it the officer in the in the hotel room ask him do you still want to bowl for one hundred fifty all means multiple girls any number of girls gaffney's understanding and that's what had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that he understood that somehow this was transformed into an incident involving minors by the use of the acronym