statute using the ordinary language of the english language that's exactly what they did they sought to punish behavior when someone in pension only takes the identity of another person the heading of the statute itself is identity theft the theft of someone's identity and to read it in any other way than then requiring knowledge at each and every element of the statute would defy the the very common sense of what the statutes intended to prevent on top of constructed in the normal english language whether or not knowledge applies to each of the of the elements following the word knowledge in the federal statute the way that it's read that says that knowingly of a person  knowingly which is the app or which modifies the verb possessed or uses without legal authority a means of identification of another person so it's knowingly uses a means of identification of another person and the spring port in that case help the knowingly applied the the adverb knowingly applied to the verb uses and then which applied to the object of the road which is the identity of these another person and the only difference in the statute i mean the federal heard him and the illinois identity theft statute would be instead of using the worst means of identification they actually spelled out what what means of identification is forms as opposed to just generally they say a personal identification information or personal identification document as the only difference between the the way that is constructed in the illinois statute again knowingly  uses the verb the transfer of her to the person i don't hate identifying information or personal identifying document of another person this supreme court upheld the normal language in the way that this is commonly used there's sure absolutely never take a case there was an immigrant from from mexico it came in the united states in two thousand initially was using some documents that apparently according to the text didn't belong to anyone else and he pushed her over and start using documents that did he a i guess i would ask in what way i don't think the forest figure as far as it made it very easy to make the comparison between the illinois statute and the statute of the federal government i mean easy to compare because it the step back down might it might have been used as a factual basis for whether he did have that knowledge or not but i don't think the ruling of the united states supreme court i'm really fell exactly it's out here whether you know we will be know maybe something that her for may years well let's start with the premise that if you're going to accept that you do have to prove knowingly of another person and then you move to the next step of did the state actually do that here well then you accept the presence of the state has the burden of proof that a trial and in this situation if you look at the facts of the case the weight of the evidence when in all that her statement that i made this up there was no evidence was ever hear of the circumstantial evidence that the justice house was just referring to you have somebody with the same first name you have somebody from the same city you have the statement that's an interesting statement where she says she didn't think the first number would be a good one because it was one given to her by a mother but she had to use a good one where does the concept of her belief that this is a good one come from and we're not saying at this stage anything other than  fact circumstantial evidence that a judge would be entitled to consider in establishing whether the mental state of knowingly knowing you're using someone else's identification could be applied the the evidence that you're saying slightly different than the way you're stating it the way that it came in but that in a very important way more your name did not testify in this case that the detective did as to her statement her statement was not there's a chance here that she knew what she was doing because she was able to purchase a vehicle with a good social security number i mean that the credit report there was testimony that  point of the so scary number we don't have any evidence because this is the we don't have any evidence of this that says one way or the other whether how long she'd been using this number has she had been using this number from one of purposes for many years she might have established her own but we don't really know about what we already know she was able to walk in put down money use a cell shelf and walk out with are it also assumes that she understands exactly how the so security number would have been used for for a credit purposes as well which was an established fact in the s those pick their numbers it assumes that they're very accurate and as if she made up this number didn't do it with some knowledge as to the first three digits and in the area she could simply see somebody else's so security number from the area and change two digits on it and w reject her statement and take it and and and for that she knew what she was doing i think it would be very difficult for this for the judge to infer that she did anything other than make it up with her own statement to the police when she talked about the two different numbers that were used one being a ten and one being so silly now but but if a defendant says let's take another example i didn't really i didn't really intend to kill him are you saying that a trial judge us decide whether it's murder murder second witnesses conclusion as your statement as to intent let me ask you a different question if we if this court were to find that the floors figaro a requirement of knowingly using another person's believe that it is and so i'm not going to apply so if you're honest did it find that it is i have an argument to read think clearly by the record the trial ford did not interpret it that way and not use that standard when evaluating the facts of wh not she'd made up this number or whether or not the state had met their burden of beyond a reasonable doubt that she had not and if your honour's didn't read it that way that's exactly what their burden would be they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did in fact knowingly be interpreted and you would concede that one possible outcome would be acquittal but another possible outcome depending on our view of the evidence would be to remand it for for example the  judge to consider whether under a different standard of florence figaro whether he believed that there was proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the issue of knowingly yes sir i think that that's certainly not the used to differentiate between a person using the identifying information and the personally identifying document there are in their brief that because the or is in the place of these two that the only other person only applies to the second half easy to prove based on the rich writing of the statute but the second part of that is that the legislature has at their disposal that if they want to exclude the state from having to prove knowingly as a by the way that we're asking they could write it that way they could simply add a sentence that it is not of the facts that you did not know that it was a real person or they could pick out the language of another person they didn't include it if you take out the language of saying that they they had beyond that education that they really had over something that would probably cause them to be able to obtain something then it wouldn't be the legislature wouldn't be protecting their individuals that they're trying to protect that's another person still made the ruling that there was no evidence that they knew that the defendant that case knew he was using a real person's identity and if in that situation where the court looked at all those facts there was a i think it's very difficult for this court or the using the identity of another person if there was a specific victim and that was in his question which he posed to counsel during the motion to reconsider which is kind of the ultimate point in a case kind of motion to reconsider her now at that moment or now it's period therefore the judge west considering this and there's nothing in the record that shows the judge didn't apply the standards set forth or as he just didn't believe  is there some analogy here to a situation where a jury is given an incorrect jury instruction good place that it was a made up numbers skewed a self serving statement and not two people believed whether the sum was not that's i mean i think that's the the ultimate statement there but the question is  different one from whether he found or believed that it was he knowing use of another person's identification or not where you said that here and the there's nothing in the record that affirm the demonstrates otherwise except the statement that says that i don't believe it applies that would apply if i thought it yes i think that the way  well i think if you read their conclusion what they're asking for is they put in those last few words or any result the style of court she leaves just so they're not limiting themselves and now asking for only an outright the judge and i would point out that i think the judge considered the evidence properly and there certainly isn't enough to properly he just didn't believe that the mere statement i made it up provide person the defense liability depends on chance if it turns out the number belongs to a real person two years will be added but if the defendant is lucky and the number doesn't block another person does get out violated justice alito in that situation said it would be lucky if you did come did make that they didn't that a whole lot more than there was any implication that she did make up this number the implication was that i don't think it applied for i did think it applied i would i would i would certainly apply it as well as he made comments concerning how difficult it would be for the state exoneration if i was to use that interpretation i didn't use those words if i use that interpretation but i believe that was the implication that he was giving that he wasn't interpret statute as that requirement on the state it's the same argument that was rejected by the supreme