confusion or at least things could have been stated more clearly in this case where mr vigil received three strikes and the twenty five years to life was premised upon his compliance with the sex registration requirement it seems to me and particular theories were and i've done my best to try to interpret those as i could because it's not a question of talking to a lawyer or reading something a lawyer presented but fundamentally i think when you cut through everything and boils down to this mr vis well knowledge in the sense of he signed the cards the language was presented to him he changed his for instance he had an obligation to register and i think the question is not whether he was given those words but how those words are to be interpreted by a defendant or a registrant requirement in his circumstances and then applying all the facts that are in this case and by that i mean that's my track he's planning which what i'm trying to misunderstand me if i sent that well i think it has two different cont it he was told and i don't think it's any question because he signed forms to that effect any changed his registration requirement at various points in time that he had a lifetime obligation irrespective of statements he made a detective martin about ten years or any of that stuff but the question boils down to what do we do with the circumstances of him being at his mother's one room apartment or house for some duration of time and that's what the parties were really essentially fighting about a notification so we have people think things like the government as well as mother told the officers at a certain point that he was living there the jury verdict and based on the instructions the jury established that he did in fact live at his mother's apartment which he never listed i don't think it did and here's why living is not a requirement of the statute in other words it's all framed in terms of re the ambiguity the seeing question did the jury verdict in the context of the instructions the jury received established that the jury determined beyond a reasonable doubt that he resi at the fifth street address the dream was instructed on the issue of residence but it was never instructed that mr visual received a similar instruction when he got the notification language in other words there's a calendar construction  gave which said here's what residents means because the jury wouldn't know what it meant according to the court but mr visual never got the same thing and such as they will the jury necessarily made a determination that that was his residence is in conflict with the fact that mr visual himself never viewed it that way based on what actually he was doing having clothes they're taking a shower they're getting his mail there that's the gist of his argument i think that unless and until you have a regist being told what it means to reside in a particular place like a jury is told years later when they charge him with failing to register what was he told exactly the card is in the supplemental excerpts that the government supplied and it basically says you have a requirement to notify the local authorities if you change your residence but it doesn't read it doesn't define it it doesn't say a residence means something more than a mere passing through as the jury was instructed doesn't say it's a place of abode that gives him no meaning and so interpretation of what he'd been told the simple word residence that was in the residence and by the court failing to instruct him willful that's somebody live in a camper never know but it would be a question of whether that person had been notified what see that it's easier if you talk about a person who's staying only in one plane and i use the term staying because i don't want to get into living residing visiting if he's physically going from place to place the statute i believe even required even  the the the dispute was about is it is father's residence and his prior description there adequate or was the fact that he was doing whatever he was doing his mother's place something that given the court's tailor to instruct on the willfulness as an element of the offense and normal understand because he certainly doesn't contradict well i don't think i would say in that regard your honor is that we're going to hold him to a normal understanding then why do we then instruct the jury when he's prosecuted years later as to what the word residence means when he was never given that and that's what brings us full circle to him having a willful failure to register if the judge refuses to instruct it had to be willful but moreover it tells the jury it's a general intent crime and if he guesses wrong the facts you being told what residence means but we're going to tell the jury years later something more than he was told and we're going to hold him under a general intent instruction to that same standard so both of those things when you get them together i think create the problem i see  and the evidence is he mostly states that point of view and sometimes he stays over at his mother's then i can see where he did have a really good three defen and that he did not willfully fail to give his address the problem is that his registered address is floyd saint well that's what i honestly think that's a little ambiguous as well because the evidence there was never really evidence presented as to what do you do when you have these multiple places you're staying at and that's the confusion as well in this case is that it's not just for white he his position was that he was properly registered in his father's addressed and that this was just a place  doubt the question really is whether that was an unreasonable interpretation of u s supreme court law and our position of course was that it was not but the state court properly applied correct standard and found that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that's really what this court needs to look at when you're saying he had knowledge i  believe that the jury found if you have changed his residence under the instructions that were given you're arguing he had knowledge or you're conceding that he didn't have knowledge oh we're arguing that he had knowledge yes and that he had signed the forms your head people sign things all the time that reading them so they have notice but no knowledge well yes but in this case we had signed but basically the same type of for more than once and the notice was that close to the end of their terms get my law clerks races because they passed the bar some state i have never read the form i have no idea what it says and what people do that i agree that people do that are usually not on something and serious with the situation where registered failure to register is going to result in potentially on your jail term or prison term i mean this is something that i think felons generally let me tell you why it bothers me i recall when i was in my twenty's and i thought the same thing with my kids and their twenties it's really hard to say what they domicile as it's hard to say what their residences  kid my daughter she now lives on a crane between new haven and washington if she goes back and forth so much she's there as much as any place else i don't i don't know what their residences this guy he live with his wife and girlfriend and children for a while and they threw him out i guess and he lives sometimes with his father sometimes with his mother doesn't look like he supported himself and had his own place at any time  multiple addresses and he lists too many it's not a problem i mean it's not going to have a criminal violation for listing too many places on the form you can hear going to those you know two places three places that are not blanks for apartment i sleep with whoever at the home of whoever will take me and i have somebody who's got a following as a sex offender and registration requirement is in a different position than you know your children or you or i i mean  they are in a position where the authorities want to know where they are living and it's very clear to them from the forum that the authorities want to know that and they're risking her the prison time if they don't say so so i think they need to be clear need a weapon this instruction but what should have had a willfulness instruction i mean there's no question that there should have been an instruction about actual knowledge and why it doesn't matter that he didn't get one is supposed to be in harmless beyond a reasonable doubt well it's it's  it's harmless because he was in a situation where he had the notices and while those don't equate to actual knowledge in the sense that you know you can say for sure that somebody had knowledge here it's a situation where they found him yes i forgot i forget exactly how much they had trouble had to go to to run him down he wasn't at the residence address but he had listed so they did have some difficulties in this and you know he was not certainly complying with the spirit of the of the statute and i think the notices that he received made it clear to him that he wasn't and he wasn't complying literally without even any further counsel as to the second part the the question of this other defense that was not raised as a defense and the situation where you have something where there is a defense with the the defendant is trying to raise and the trial judge refuses to give instructions on that defense whether it's an entrapment as was in matthew's or in or in other types of cases and where you've got a situation where there's some bit of evidence there the defendant is not relying on that in the course of the trial does not ask for instructions on it and then to say after the fact well the trial judge failed to instruct the spotting on that i think that that's a situation where the courts do not need to bend over backwards for that situation but it's a claim that is being raised for the first time here remember exactly and why wouldn't that be enough evidence of good faith he's revealing the address so that the instructor might have mattered well i think your honor if  if he's claiming the first street addresses his residence with the department of motor vehicles and he's claiming that it is his residence across with other places other regions to use and then he should have it on and swallow to me it can be a mail address but not a residence address all of my children get some of their important mail at my address my wife from my and my address even though they're all adult children and don't live there anymore they're just there for a week at christmas it's just the most permanent aggress they have at this stage of their lives after they get important mail there he may he might reasonably li what the court actually did on the instructions and i think that goes to the heart of the prejudice not only to the court not instruct on well for us or knowledge and i don't mean that he knew we had this registration card he signed but what did it mean you know back in the circumstances he was in at that time with his mother's couch but the court also instructed that it was a general intent crime and even if the defendant may not know his actual mission was unlawful you convinced him that to me is what makes the prejudiced really easy to argue here because it wasn't just still your one instruction but it was in effect telling the jury exactly the opposite knowledge essentially becomes irrelevant because the general intent crime you guessed wrong on the couch and whether it needs to be registered and you're out of