have the petitioner pleading guilty to the manufacturing of i think felony and at the time that he pled first part of october of ninety ninety nine there was no requirement as the court is aware in the state prosecution to require that the district attorney's office actually be able to plead and prove that the defendant had knowledge of what was being manufactured of what he was in fact manufacturing that science or requirement is lacking and in this case he pled guilty immigration service just as we know from the charging document that they issued a notice to appear charged allege the conviction and then set forth two charges of removing the most critical analogous to the one in the under federal law and we set forth what we believe is the difference and that is if there's no knowledge of there was no knowledge required until the california supreme court  transpired looking at the quote according to a case which is the case that put to rest the controversy that we had here in california looking in in october of ninety nine we circuit looked at the found in ye that a second degree car burglary was not going to be an aggravated felony because we took that other that extra step and looked at what he common law individual no or the government have to show that he knew that he had knowledge i don't think that you can use that knowledge of what knowledge of the that he was involved in the manufacturing of a controlled substance it doesn't matter  not i think that what we have to look at is look at the language in that decision that decision that's forth exactly what was going on in the state of california we had a problem and the problem is we are taking pleas from individuals that are before the state court judge you would not be able to get that conviction without being able to show that the individual had knowledge so why should you why should the government benefit from being able to get a conviction in state court without knowledge and not turn around and say well you know part but in any event there's no problem saying well but you can't retroactive make that to him because the fact he didn't plea to knowledge so he doesn't fall into any crack as a result of korea i mean the law is what it is i think i think is the one place that we have to look at that gives us the result in this case here and that is you must be able to show that the individual that there's knowledge there this is not a strict liability offense and up until the time that korea but you haven't really answered our question why then haven't they shown knowledge when you take the complaint  not have ten thousand dollars or more list that you would not be able to look we've beyond the judgment and i think here we have a judgment for manufacturing we have to look at that church in total that suppose someone is someone in a position then after having acknowledged that to say well i'm really not i'm really not owning up to the added element because that's it seems to me that's what we have court and korea looked at the statute and determined that the legislature intended a knowledge requirement in the statute so korea didn't add new law it didn't set forth a new rule and interpret the data sheet that says what it's always said so the petitioner makes a lot of the fact the career came out three weeks after he pleaded guilty but it's not as though the career court set forth any new substance then the defendant was being was manufacturing but that wasn't the most recent her now by a california court of appeal on the issue the most recent pronouncement was the california court of appeal in korea which  similarly to the supreme court that there was a knowledge requirement so i think the the allegation that there was that there was this firm california pronouncement that knowledge is not a requirement that's not a fair reflection of the state of the law on the time the defendant pleaded guilty but even assuming that at the time the defendant pleaded guilty that there was not a knowledge and then the abstract of judgment reflects that the defendant pleaded guilty to count number one which was the willful manufacture of methamphetamine so i think assuming for purposes of an argument that there is a problem with the the last piece on our calendar for today and for the week is suzanna for versus john