abuse of a minor so i will be happy to get that to get that to get to that in a moment but i'm focusing first on crying valving moral turpitude because the treaty never had to decide that and fundamentally the category of commission of a base or dupr back is a crime involving moral turpitude so that the mere wilfulness i was focused on the evil intent and it seemed to be particularly absent in the case of even if it were the intent it doesn't apply to knowledge of the age of the victim so you don't need to violate the act by engaging a sexual act with someone under eighteen or under sixteen you intend to engage in the sexual act the little for most competent it doesn't apply to the to the knowledge because it's a it's a general intent crime you don't have to try all the prosecutor wouldn't have to prove th defendant knew the age of the victim so it's an affirmative defense that only that the defendant had a good face reasonable belief that the victim was over eighteen but that's not an element of the crime so you don't have this is they say the court concludes that respondents conviction under c p t souse to sixty one point five feet which is for the most serious offense into sixty one point five years for conduct regardless of the general statements infer and fernando is true we just that there's a limit to how powerful any particular powerful any particular panel of the court is one of speaking generally than which i think is right that we would only reach this precise issue of the sexual abuse the minor if we got to waiver which we don't need to reach because he wasn't removable in the first instance that's correct so when the judge engaged in her analysis eight the supreme court said this shouldn't be a split analysis and although it wasn't directly on issue there and i believe in the workplace decision it's very likely since it's also split analysis the court will reach that and i think the supreme court will indicate how to resolve when sixteen there is there is a consensus that below fourteen not ok there seems to be a consensus that seventeen is not abusive because it's legal in almost in most places and there counsel i have a problem with that argument let me tell you what it is so you can respond to it as the difference in states argument if you look at whether the offense is a really bad offense like if you were trying to find out if it was meant thread or something of that nature looking at what other states did would be informative but let's suppose you hav that's a crime in alaska but it's not a crime anywhere else or it's a crime in california but it's not a crime anywhere else you might be looking at not the offense conduct but at the willingness to break the long contract you can you might be able to smoke in a restaurant in one place but not another and if you ride up in both places  we're not talking now about well turpitude but if you light up in both places it tends to show you are scofflaws even though there is no consensus here even if there is no consensus that smoking cigarettes is  when you look at all the states and federal there is no allowance for below fourteen so there's a consensus that that is a line and what i propose is that fourteen or fifteen it may or may not be abusive they wouldn't be allowed under any circumstances so it's akin to a regulation you need a permit that permit is the marriage license and virtually all states have that rule for sixteen and seventeen that shouldn't even be that should be categorically not abusive when you look at the fact that it's legal under certain prescribe circumstances so it can't just be it can't be inherently abuse it that's why i propose that may not be able to reach that conclusion at ages fourteen and fifteen but given that it's also permitted in many places california or texas with a marriage license to the biggest states clearly there are some circumstances where sexual act of the fourteen or fifteen year old is not abused there may very well be other circumstances where he is and that's where the court should look at the law for the circuit fairly circumspect you can deal with the issue that's directly before it and you can come up with tests that help understand that decision but it cannot cast aside prior precedent that has looked at the issue and go and in this in this court is not contrary to the general notions of what a crime involving moral turpitude is so the answer i think for the first question is no the firm and has not wiped clean the slate of this court's jurisprudence it has provided a test that can be used in the future to help decide in appropriate cases what it can lead but if another panel felt that just didn't fit for one reason or another as a general matter would you agree with that if there had to be some evil motive and not just a strict liability sort of crime well the requirement of a base or violent tent is always been a part of the crime  they reached the conclusion that sexual intercourse plus age equals abuse and isn't that missing one of the steps in other words determining whether or not under the circumstances there was really abuse is corruption in its words and that has been applied by every panel since albeit now the ages quite crept up from the age of fourteen to anybody under the age of sixteen and that's united states  united states versus alvarez etc so what's happened is in this particular circuit this court has always considered sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of sixteen to be abus very consistent with other sexual abuse of minor statutes in the in the in the united states code there seem to be no real problem with in fact this court looked at the actual definitions of the term sexual abuse  if the age of majority is eighteen then it's a minor under eighteen and there's no question that sexual intercourse is sex whether it's abuse or very not well california says it is and that's bad it is a physical article that's more or less the logic in a nutshell your honor and you know it does bring up a very important point which is petitioners counsel brings up this issue regarding statements made by the state of california both to the california supreme court and to united states supreme court that the purpose of to sixty one point five was to limit teenage pregnancy right but that's sort of a misstatement of what the supreme court said the supreme court said that because the classification of applying it to a female versus a male child is an issue there has to be a justification sufficient justification the court acknowledged there could be many justifications for this statute including moral ones so if you want to center but the one th clearly under our case law seems to me you have a different result whether or not the crime occurs in california no you are the issue is whether the person would be convicted of the fans but that's the price of federalism when you live in a particular state law we're going to establish some uniformity and if we're going to credit the state convictions as under federal law they have to be certain criteria that's exactly what the supreme court did on taylor and that's why now the court tries to generate either a generic definition or look at the common everyday terms that a baseline is set if the if a person violates a crime that crosses that baseline that cross that threshold they've taken on the federal law at this point right and that's and then we were talking about today is not to define the threshold here is that for the purposes of federal law not state law that is correct but that's why we look at the common everyday meaning if any particular state violate is not desirable it's inherent and will never disappear because we have a federal system but here's how it gets resolved to the best extent possible you know in for example uniform standard that everyone is on notice that they should violate no laws that fall within that category whether their particular state punishes it or not is one thing but if they decide to take on that state law they're on notice that there's a threshold out there that they are in danger of falling into and not not at no real danger by clear meaning nationally but you said earlier that california has defined statutory rape as a at least in this particular case we have the california courts drawing the exact same line that this court has drawn and it's precedent that congress is drawn in eighteen u s c twenty two forty three and forty with this court's president and the state of california it seems that all indicators point towards this is sexual abuse of a minor on of the common everyday meaning which is what afridi said was the board's permissible interpretation governor has to continue to submit that at least in this case under two sixty one point five d d there on a president of this court on a congressman's clear statements under california is intent by all measures  sexual abuse of a minor there's no need to read we do the landscape everyone is clear on this and there's no confusion when one last question do you agree with the opposing counsel that analytical deter unwed teenage pregnancy so we're not just relying on a supreme court rationale but in explicit finding by the legislature again emphasizing it's a regulatory type law nonna morality law and so all of the questions of a three d look has to lease and valencia and grandma don't even come into play on the primary question of moral turpitude which i think we're in agreement has to be reached first by this court that's wrong address