that obviously mr riehl feelings towards his knees and his hand is certainly dysfunctional i think the real question is did it violate federal criminal statutes that he was charged with violating which are very precise as to what is required to violate them if i can turn first to count one which is the so called interstate stalking violation that statute requires that his conduct after crossing state lines must of put his  and i think that's that is not the right focus the indictment was very clear that the niece was named as the as the victim and it was said that mr vaile had placed her in three or now and the question of fear of death or serious bodily injury to her family which would have been a basis for a violation she never testified to her feeling any fear about anything happening to her family so the question then is what appears you may have felt as as to herself  sometimes if i understand your argument you're saying there's no evidence from her that she was put in here there was no evidence that she was put in there at all whether from her or someone else as as to her family and then the question is what was their evidence that she feared for her own either death or serious bodily injury and i think and that she never claimed that she feared that mr beale would cause serious bodily injury she said at one point you feared being kidnapped but that's just does not meet the statutory definition so then the question becomes does the president fear of death from him and she never testified to that but there was testimony that when she spoke to the detective she told the detective that she had told her her mother that she feared that he might kill her so that was really the only evidence that she feared her own death and i think  she was asked why she felt that and i quote i just think he might i don't know so and i don't think that's testimony is sufficient to show that he caused her to be in fear of death for two reasons what caused her to make this statement her mother the statement we don't know what the context was and when she came out she really said that expressed fear and that's what the mother testified right now the mother didn't testify that your honor the detective testified she the tech there's a tape of the detective talking it did come into evidence yes it was played and i don't think that that's a totally unreasonable fear there was nothing in his conduct this suggested that he would kill her and i think the other thing is that is that his conduct after crossing the state lines must have cause and in this case i think it was the mother with the mother had told her about him that really caused the poor she even said that she changed her views of him quote because i found out i found some more stuff about him because before my mother hadn't told me all of this stuff and then she said her mother had told her number one that mr veal might hurt her so there was nothing to suggest there and then he she also the mother made the false accusation at least totally unsupported that mr beale had molested some children in the statute if i could if i could where this was just a little girl eight year old girl and i and she wasn't being testifying in court during this interview i'm thinking a little girl like that it's likely to be afraid of something awful happening to her way that that's how the district judge what i thought was words i think rather than having something more concrete i'm afraid he'll do th as is defined very very clearly and i want to get to the five elements of it but it is just what it sounds like and i think i think first of all it was unclear that she had anything for years at various times she she said she didn't like him anymore i think they never really addressed did she have any reasonable fear and what was it caused by and i think that i think is also questions about what he intended to but i'm trying to focus on what i think is the biggest hole in that particular county question by the detective and the girls and after a not if the interview came in evidence did you tell your mother that he that you were afraid that he was going to kill you yeah because because number one that's a totally unreasonable fear and number two it was really induced by the mother saying that he might hurt that he mr bayle might hurt her she was told by her mom this man has molested children in mexico and he might hurt you if it wasn't mr mr veal conduct which which is part of going to the jury former school or the mailings and those kind of things that caused that fear so it was either on reasonable and was caused more by the mother saying he might hurt you you know but there's been nothing that indicate he would ever heard i mean i think whatever he was just functional thinking and it didn't seem to go in that area who determines the reasonable question of law or the jury this or we have that before i think the trier of fact has to determine that in the court has determined whether reasonable trier of fact can find that reasonable doubt based on the on the stand the evidence here and but if you look at his hand there's not a single thing with indicate that he would kill her or that he had would do violence to or even suggest the niece or the family was violated in fact it was never he never contacted them when he went down there on may first of two thousand and two the government suggested he violated that part of it was said that he couldn't go within two hundred yards of of the place of work against physical proximity to a person if you can the part that says you can't come within two hundred yards of her if you violated that it would meet the statute but this was a place this was that i personally didn't say when she was there or anything of that nature and i tried to lay out in a reply brief of pages ten thirteen why that new theory which was never charged never argued by the prosecutor was never found by the judge just simply is not good enough and the last part of it is the requirement the other way just to sustain the conviction would be if you could find that he intended to harass her or her family is as we've shown in that again in the reply brief the california statute defines harassment is requiring course of conduct course of conduct as per the requiring two or more acts and as far his his his post crossing state lines conduct the indictment charge only one act and that's all that there is evidence about that he went to her we're dealing in this case with a child that was seven years old at the time that his inappropriate behavior began at the time of trial she was nine years old it is impossible to extricate the pavior toward the child's parents es to establish a relationship between the defendant and the seven year old child furthermore the reasonableness of the child fear for her serious bodily injury was also evidence over and over again in the acard as you have pointed defendant's inappropriate and frankly dangerous behavior she would not have been in a position to say anything to induce anything she was responding reasonably to the clear and present threat just then didn't put the child and notify her parent he was putting the child  over and over again to say that somehow kidnapping the fact that the child so that she was scared that she was going to be kidnapped is somehow not evidence for the serious bodily injury doesn't hold water it's kidnapping while can you show me exactly what words to use in the narrative statement that show that the chairman of the twenty to sixty one a is satisfied in terms of him going the judge did not go your that's a reasonable fear is what the judge said good enough to support that yes it is good enough to support that especially given the fact that he made the statement that it was beyond a reasonable doubt threatening and it came it's also important i think one of  since i can't remember for sure i know when i was a district judge when i had been stright case i always made findings i can't remember if i was required to make findings or  record and tie that to the language entity what he said is what you haven't asked me for findings but i'll tell you what my principal reasons are found that they were proving beyond a reasonable doubt another aspect of the that i don't why nobody should judge the rule so that you should make findings your we request findings or something like that why they didn't i'm sorry i would have thought the prosecutor since they were winning would ask findings of fact in order to get a record that had be clear and solid and i'm sure if she if she were still here and thought about it on  the second argument with regard to contact with the school the insinuation that contact with the child's teacher was not somehow contact with her is not the whole point of him being at the school is to establish contact and he goes to the school as the record points her correct quote correct things so that he can continue to see her again so to say that somehow the contact with the school was was not directed towards that still or did not implicate her as an appropriate furthermore the child's mother didn't back  defendant showed an intent to be within two hundred yards of the person because he gives a package and says it's more extreme or prestes teacher clearly indicating that they could he thought that he might in fact be in contact with her at that particular point in time the fact that she was not there is not relevant intent of twenty two sixty one one of the things that the house report one of six point five five points out in its background a need for legislation is the fact that the concept of harassment is one  that that varies from state to state and that it can include anything from threats of violence against the family to immediate family members that it may involve annoying or menacing behavior that convict the man of a crime based on what the legislative history says no no that no no no just in terms of the reasonable man aspect the finder of fact had and finding the things and in considering the things and actions that took place that were also against the child's parents including the mailings including continuing to contact the family even after he was asked not to the violation of the protection order of march seventeenth of two thousand the second violence and of an order in two thousand and two and in terms of whether or not there were two or more although