counsel good afternoon your honors as noted i represent there to defend in this case in order to convict someone of violating or protection or in this instance knowing it was not correct in the sense that it didn't quote your the order didn't say place of appointment but just clemens did on january fourteenth percenter an order restriction order against my client which said both responded is ordered to stay at least one after in fact the best i think example that is when judge when the plane really came into place what did the judge what the judge do the judge changed it and the judge the plane ray said he's ordered to stay at least one hundred feet it was one that you could come on the premises for to go inside and it was that exact same interpretation what is your mean does it mean that someone is a pirate i think if you simply come up on the premises are those circumstances that you have to go inside and he suicide to a decree that in this instance it means just the location to build that wasn't for him to decide when he decides that it takes away the actual act that the jury large her mouth circle outline and i think it's made to represent one hundred feet from the perimeter of the building itself right and that's what it's meant to shower sometimes so that if you take one been in the record because again we never got any opportunity to put their best to me best the exact point when the judge says you cannot put on any evidence with respect to what the defendants understanding of the risk we had as attorney who why this is i think especially ambiguous because now we're talking about he knows he can't be near this individual and there's never any issue about my client you can he's a ph d students going to class that's all this ever was nothing more  petitioners workplace and six hundred men so the question from my perspective is when you have a multifaceted building and you make reference to a particular place within that address the work place prosecutor the prosecutor quoted the language in the information not the language that was in the order mr bill started to point that out ports to aspire to said we're not going down this road you're not going to be able to do he was the judge was confining or would be allowable argument of what you defendant was within one hundred feet of the perimeter of the building is that your interpretation of texan which is a matter of law for the court to decide if the order itself is ambiguous then at that point perhaps the role of lenity of fison determining whether a defendant five he was violating the order when he engaged in whatever actually engaged him the judge in this case rules that this order was not ambiguous had which point then counsel could argue against that you promise this and the state had to prove that he either didn't violate the act coming within one hundred feet of six hundred thousand matthews or that he didn't have knowledge of the order he was served with the order your honor the trial court's holding was that this order was not ambiguous and therefore under people vs that you can't then argue about what defendant five he was doing when he entered that building six hundred south matthews describing a piece of property upon which a building serves the owner it's my understanding that if this is driving the building itself how do we know that because the order of protection state during our defense counsel's statements here today that would lead to some kind of an absurd result with orders of protection and so far as that it says a hundred feet from this one room in this one building then the defendant could presumably be inside of this be out here having this discussion or in the trial where the defendant would say i knew i had an order of protection but i didn't know that i violated it this is what would happen every time and this is why this actually reads this way it's not strict liability there is a man for component but that man's right component  and the defendant knew that there is an order of protection against him and your honor and i know we didn't discuss it too much and defense counsel's opening statements here but i think that one thing that really demonstrates the defendant knew he wasn't supposed to go to class is the fact that he was trying to get this order of protection change trying to change the wording of it because he knew that under the way it read he can't go to five hundred i think that's telling evidence that he knew he was supposed to go to class that day this may i ask you  petitioner's workplace at this address from the trial court found that was not ambiguous and therefore under people berthoud it the defendant cannot then argue that he didn't know you violated that order when he did whatever conduct he ended up doing your honor here the state proves that she while an infiniti to prove that defendant had been served or had actual knowledge of the contents of an order and that he violated them in the state have evidence to show that he violated them turner i'd like to briefly address there's been some discussion tainting the jury in some way runners what happened here is that counsel and time and time and time again been told by the trial for if you cannot make this argument as a matter of law i find that this order is not ambiguous the court told defense counsel that he could argue one that the order simply wasn't violated if you didn't go within one hundred feet of this address or he didn't have notice or he wasn't served very didn't have actual knowledge of the contents of the order the court's whole defense counsel th many times it's almost painful reading the record and then defense counsel the many he gets to the podium to give his opening statements start to go down that path that everyone had discussed so many times before your honor the court did not see what spontaneous and in fact time the state actually objected because the state could sense that that's the route they were going down the court i'm paraphrasing but said no it is this is a premature objection let him go let him talk to kind of put him on notice you know if you've got a shot here defense counsel then continue to go down this workplace as ambiguous half at which point the trial court then honors of course the trial court was going to jump and they held as a matter of law multiple times that you cannot make this argument and then defense counsel in opening arguments did of the jury that's not true this is a sidebar discussion while there are boys who are raised by the jury could hear it's not clear from the order or from the record now i feel that this is a sidebar discussion the court didn't reprimand defense counsel in open court where the jury was sitting there and could hear this is a sidebar discussion where the court again reiterated the same order it is made time and time again grounders furthermore this offense counsel in his brief and today has relied heavily on people versus babbitt i'd like to briefly distinguish that from what we have today and people versus down at the court held as a matter of law the appellate court found that the order in this case but ambiguous your honour's the language used and the order of protection of people versus babbitt was that to find it was to stay away from the household premise of his ex wife and that he needed to stay away from his former spouse impose where all the that was ambiguous as a matter of law because household premises they weren't sure if that included the exteriors of the home there was some discussion order that defined it was able to take his children to and from the house and furthermore stay away well that is not very helpful in terms of an order of protection how far away what to say away i mean there are some for those reasons the court holding people versus dad the order of protection of wife ambiguous and therefore defendant state of mind that mattered in that case contrast that's what we have here with a proud court held as a matter of law that the that the order was not ambiguous at which point the defendant's state of mind or what he thought i have doesn't matter the mens rea element and that you were either served with the order of protection or you had actual knowledge of the contents defendant was served counsel himself even represented that defendant was served with the order and he was aware of its contents counsel simply would not accept those rulings and that's what led to all these other issues that defendant has raised today there's no question the defendant knew the terms of the order and he violated them if your honour's have any other question i would be happy to address them