in pretrial motions excluding any evidence of the correspondence from the secretary of state any evidence regarding the b a i d permits on his payments his monthly payments of seventy dollars a week that permit i understand that but the defense that he was being was the ignorance or mistake believe the trial court would be required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for him to present this as an affirmative defense and i believe the record is clear that there is sufficient evidence that he was entitled to present this as an affirmative and there are numerous letters so the tsunami and the payments alone maybe not but in combination with all the letters from the secretary of state and secretary of state official in totaling one of with a strict liability offense lack of one's intent cannot negate an element however this is distinct here we're talking about due process principles which prohibit the state telling a person to take his vehicle into the service and that he had ten days to comply letters with demanded mr lackey explained not like he was driving the vehicle but why he had started his vehicle with a certain amount of blood in with alcohol in his  showing all of this evidence to the trial or back and letting them decide whether he was reasonable i think good evidence that his interpretation that he could drive was reasonable was secretary of state official dieter's interpretation of the letters he too found two thousand and eleven letter indicated mr lackey could drive and i think that's a very good indication of whether that's a reasonable interpretation or not but again we're not arguing that no political and relevant defense should have been available to mr lackey and it's got three elements that a government official with actual authority tells someone that their conduct is legal here we've got the secretary of state the department in these letters in combination could lead in a reasonable person to believe that he could drive and mr lackey the third element it's obvious that he did with my own it because he paid seventy dollars a month from two thousand and nine until two thousand july two thousand leve when this accident occurred so his actual reliance occurred and we believe his reliance was reasonable and his head patrick peters the secretary of state official with fifteen years experience relying on facts that are not in the record for example we do not know that mr lackey was think these letters about either from the bay division of the secretary of state because because of his failure to take the device out of his vehicle  liability offense because of the the nature of the offense itself right so in a strict liability i don't see how he gets this let the state say yes you can do something else we were wrong to the strict liability offense so you are out of life and my comment regarding that he was convicted the moment the cop finished writing the ticket that's in reference to the driving with revoked license ticket if he writes the revoked license ticket and then we tie with defendant's hands and say no you can't present any of this evidence from the secretary of state that he was essentially convicted of this driving with a revoked or suspended license the moment that that ticket was completed that were keeping with secretary of state correspondence from coming in in any manner and i want to point out that much of the state's i didn't hear about whether mr lackies actions in reliance on these letters were reasonable or not and again