felony offense of identity theft and basically which you've been convicted of those because she used a social security number that belonged to another person unbeknownst to her but she used a social security number the longing what did she have to know i guess in your mind to be convicted of this offense did she have to know if this was not her social security number or did she have to know that it belonged to someone else in her use of it could harm them i believe it's the latter and i think that she did clearly by the statute have to know that it belonged to another person an actual person and that was due to what the course and hernandez evidence that the defendant purchased the number which are those were the facts that they said were disagreements but they're present here we are going in hernandez i think the evidence was much more all of the public or in that case a right and didn't that in the trial court just simply say not simply i take it back didn't track or say i find it the status that it's a burden of proof of the elements of identity theft and then goes on for several pages that because the only evidence show that they did did marry and sanchez was not aware of this until after the fact i'm thinking did you you're not you're missing my point we look at the evidence and determine whether or not reasonable finder fare in a likeness favorable to the state could have found the defendant guilty yes i did i mean is that not a reasonable inference that could be drawn that she's lying about that if anything my number versus the family friends never wanted to make a difference in this case i don't doing so based on the evidence and why is that because there's not one shred of evidence that she knew about that until after the fact after she was charged you can infer the shias are charging document she sees that she's accused of using this person social security number and then she contacts or feathers there's no evidence that what she told the name of the person during the interview to uphold that i did it the conviction are applicable here they talked about the purpose of you that if the statue was just to protect the economy and people from the from the negative effects of identity that nobody was harmed  a case where she's accused of defrauding somebody and we really i don't even know she defrauded because she didn't defrauding buddy in order to be for us a buddy somebody has to have some detriment to them there's not one person here who has a detriment the employer  montreal which is very different than montoya also very different than the reduced its thank you she's only a social security number because you have to provide a social security number to work  this that's all dicta the onus is whether or not the proof of economic benefit of the fund is not proof of economic loss to the victim hence it if the elements of identity theft do not require proof of victims what is require statement the defendant made to the officer when she purchased the car she purchased the car did she have sex and that was her statement which was to people's attention number nine and it was finding they didn't make a specific finding on the record nor but they were required to show this to argue that they were not required to prove this to the prosecutor billeted argue that they were not required to prove that that was their argument however there's nothing affirmative record that the trial judge accepted that argument they're fighting might have followed that argument but the child grows free to reject it and there's nothing affirmatively on the record to show that the trial judge acted improperly in f at the rest of the the ruling to determine if in fact this issue has been proven i can look at it because there is no front of showing that the judge incorrectly determined the finding of guilt based on the elements we cannot take that leap to of knowledge here she knew she could not obtain a social security number she found out when she tried to get her driver's license a sixteen and could not do so she knew she needed such a security number to obtain a driver's license a job she that paid someone outside of legal channels for the information and the information was successful so good that we're going to shows that she knew that the information she purchased knowledge the number belonged to a friend in the family she knew the person whose number belonged to she used this number and thus successfully have she continued to use it on her federal employment and tax forms and testified i was trying to use a number no but there was nothing to show that she was hesitant about using it either so the sole basis that your belief that every single illegal immigrant who produces a social security number two that card she her employer the facts were initiated and she purchased it from another person she knew it was not an official document she used it to apply for a job and she showed her identification during the execution process so the people argue that that not what has to happen now the judge says this is not about the personal opinions of mr zaki that you hold in this war sure that you hold or are reflected in your closing arguments it's about what i believe is the legislative inten specific findings the judge doesn't have to make specific findings but now he directs this to the legislative intent that's what you're looking at so if we look at the legislative intent in fine he made a mistake what do we do trial that that would be the result mcmahon does and we're we can't change what the supreme court did there if that is what you find people assert that it is not clear from the record there is not an affirmative showing the judge erred ergs in this case employed she was not entitled to be employment or fraud was intentionally representing herself as a knowledgeable employee to obtain the employment and the wages directly associated with that employment so that that was the whole thing and society as well it's not just harm to a specific victim but it's it's it's more than what just happens to that particular victim it's what happens to the economy what happens to people as a  some one thing i'd like to stress about this montoya case and it is so that it says i am not asking you to say this is a good case or anything below the decidedly differences with the facts that we have in this case in  differences with the other cases and even in the kansas case we're well in wisconsin case where they have held somebody being convicted of this offense is there is a set penalty just for providing false information and giving the job or giving whatever the benefit you give it doesn't the defense doesn't increase by your salary or so for instance i mean when you think about this somebody provides a false notion of security number and if they were maybe six months in they'd make you know so that maybe sufficed three felony but if there is stable person in the raising a family doing all the things that we as americans want to promote in people and in doing good for the economy i'm not saying you should use false information she did wrong here but she paid into social security accounts that they're going to benefit from that money because she could never get if she pays taxes and probably was intended to resign that she could never collect nobody's harmed it so illinois is the only statute has been interpreted that i'm aware of word of the crime becomes more serious more stable