is the interpretation of the language of the statute that talks about whether he had no knowledge or reason to know and i think that you know interestingly and most of the case for all that he saw that i was able to go through there really isn't a pursing out of what that holidays grandson was awful work and he had been on call that doesn't necessarily require that he's going to need transportation to and from the office every day so i am as distracted you have the hospital with his wife on tenure her knees are trying to figure out what her medical condition is agreement either right and in the words the grandfather's position is on his own or he was not supposed to drive but we don't know where the keys are we don't know if he's ever driven this before we don't really know a lot well  he's well he's driving into work up until the twenty seventh he did say that ok after the twenty seventh he wasn't home but thought the grandson was on vacation so he goes you should vote off until then time for every day at some point you just can't be pollyanna and put blinders on and say i told him not to drive the car therefore he must not be driving a car keep what other circumstance i think we will look to i think that what you're  heard me credibly testify to this that and the other thing the trial forward in considering that motion uses a phrase that often relates to something less than just what it sa because of these other circumstances and therefore you know he said he drove them to work which we don't know anybody else who knows that he said he told him not to drive it we don't know anybody else and if he wanted it to be a family car he apparently had a granddaughter that drove it and the wife that drove it and she certainly wasn't going to be called that she had been able to testify but there are lots of other people he couldn't fuck that car with so isn't it i mean the very simple answer to these facts with this many questions remaining in terms of the actual dollars the constructive knowledge maybe grab the should have you know maybe he should've been more mindful about the car when his wife was in the hospital with a stroke going to paralyze serious illness because she was there for at least seven or eight days you know there are any number of things that factor in the way that the human nature is and how they are how our minds work and one of our first and foremost in our priorities mr crawford's i think decision making  he had knowledge and consent to be here we go left something that the state party repeatedly in the trial for and the illegal act in this case is important because unlike in the case of maybe one chevy camaro where there was a vehicle time of purchase and almost from the time of the purchase let me see you're saying because the state didn't cross examine him on that point but simply accepted it is true he's getting his license back in a month or so that we should read into the record what's not there i'm saying that is an inference i'm saying the information contained in the record doesn't suggest anything other than the mere fact that brett did not have a license and he did did th the sand and tries to use that as a basis for claiming that he's an innocent on this when the facts and the evidence on the record supports that he should have known brett would drive that car he should've known be did not get his license back at the time that he began going to the hospital it if the evidence is that brett never drove that car before december twenty seventh i'm talking about seven or eight days here why  the seven days all this stuff brett is now going to take the car and drive it where's dad and friends again because the insurance was from november to january the title was from  january all those other things were next prior six weeks where there was no driving based on this record skinny as it is but the insurance i think is the important point in that the grandfather testified that he drove the car it can act as a red herring in the argument because it's it's not about whether or not the vehicle was insured it's about the fact that they titled this to be called insured this vehicle and brett paid for this vehicle and then he's going to claim that despite the fact he lost his license but it twelve years of passed what's the reason to believe to date or december twenty seventh that he was going to drive that car i believe the reason to know it is a to basically judge diamonds set apart i don't really believe your perspective your testimony therefore your claim is an innocent honor fails is that your bottom vision that i'm going to tell me if the circumstances he believed the car was properly forfeited that it doesn't every alleged interested owner have some money on the line i mean if it's an if it's a car with a hundred bucks fine you can tell it away but if it's i mean expected his grandson would be getting his license back to your extended period of not having a license and during that extended period of time the grandson was complying with the requirement that he not drive so much so in fact that he got a job was working in the same corporation where grandpa diverted to his ailing wife in the hospital for a period of time and he's not concerned about the car and frankly i think we would want to bring people in more concerned about the health and welfare of their family members that are property interest but at the end of the day he remains an then did not exercise discretion is it your position that the trial court here did not appreciate that it had discretion or is it the that the trial court found that the interested owner had not that