the driving force behind the fifty three month sentence that was sustained by my client in relation to his response to inquiries by the pretrial services officer and to his condition the condition that he supposedly made materially false statements regarding that led to the issuance of an arrest warrant the execution of the arrest warrant at his home and during the course of the arrest he's resisting the arrest and making threats against the pretrial services officer  involves a law enforcement witness and the key to the section is that there has to be a specific intention in this specific intention is that there were a tally ation is against the witness victim or informant for giving information relating to the commission of the violation and conditions of release pending traditional proceedings to a law enforcement officer a law enforcement officer is not a judge and in this case even if mr bud johnson had statements his refusal to comply with the conditions of pretrial services and the conditions of his release danny thing but the judge who imposed those conditions and when juan foresman officers came to his house when a violation was issue it was not within his purview of knowledge that mr burke would have done anything more than what she told the defendant she was going to do and that was report his misconduct to the judge the judge was not a law enforcement officer mr johnson  knowledge no awareness no notice that mr burke would talk to a supervisor would talk to members of other law enforcement agencies would do anything but what she told mr johnson she was going to do and that was that after question first of all your honor there isn't any case law that applies this section that i found to a situation where a person made a report to a law enforcement officer and then that law enforcement officer subsequently went to another law enforcement a victim witness or informant going to a one horse an officer it's really a two prong analysis the first is does the person know that the person that the person who is supposedly being retaliated against is going to have communications with a law enforcement officer in this case there's no basis for that awareness the pretrial services officers deal directly with the judge just like a probation officer in the case of a pro ation violation would and subsequently there's one force and off action taken based upon the misdeeds of the person who ultimately retaliates against the person they believe provided the information to want foresman then it is certainly within their s of awareness their financial consequence was they dealt with a lay witness that lay witness then went to a local professional law enforcement officer and due to the conduct of the records of professional law enforcement officer than led to the subsequent actions taken against the defendant if the witness wrote a letter to a judge instead of to a police officer and with argument change in that case your honor we don't have a violation of fifteen thirteen be too because you never have the informants or other lay people correct your second argument is that the report has to have been made to a law enforcement officer that's true regardless but there are two separate points yes i believe both of those preclude but you're  find on the face of the statute the first point that you can't find that it can't be a report to law enforcement i don't know that it can't be a law enforcement officer making a report to another law enforcement officer that you don't find them  of the statute well what you do find is in there because it's a report by a person to a law enforcement officer a long source one officer is a person certainly your honor and if you look at the description of the section after fifteen thirteen the two in the code it says retaliating against the victim witness or informant and if you also look at the language that congress used in terms of passage of fifteen twelve as well as fifteen thirteen their focus was on efforts to preclude information from going to law enforcement and that's what i what i was saying is that you know your first argument is one that you can just from look at reading the words of the statute you read the title you look at the history look at the purpose and you make that argument your second argument that the report if you have to be retaliation for reporting to a law enforcement officer you make just the face of the who under the face of the statute is not a law enforcement i'm having i'm having a sort of more of a metaphysical question here obviously those police officers were arrested your client heard from somebody that there  violation that's why they arrested him what is the significance of your client state of mind was a few believes in his statement certainly seem to suggest that this is what he believes he believes that mr burke is responsible for his being arrested is it enough that one of the other mistaken belief what if what if what if in fact she only reported to the to the judge but but but he thinks at the time he makes these threatening statements that she is responsible for those police officers being there it isn't their responsibility it is to the cause of how those officers get there it is their retaliation against what conveyance of information is retaliation against her hike radically is let's say there's no independent evidence of this but let's say he believes the time he makes these statements that she used she reported him to the police if that's what his belief is in his words manifest that belief does it matter whether she reported  police or not well his words didn't manifest that well that we could we can discuss the effort but just i'm still trying to understand what the reach of the statute is if if if i threaten to retaliate against you because i believe you have reported me to the police is it in and i and i do things that are that are required under the statute reliability does it have to be independently true that i i think it does where does it say that it doesn't but what it does say is that you are the statute provides that you are retaliating against person for giving information relevant to the commission of the facts so if there isn't information at all given that i don't think this calls falls within fifteen thirteen b two person is not it legal to threaten a witness on the mistaken belief that they have i don't think that itself could not create the mens rea a necessary for the specific intent he couldn't be guilty of violating this statute by retaliate against her for reporting him to the judge right and he would have no reason to know the permutations if the exact language is whoever knowingly engages in any act and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or threatens to do so with the intent to retaliate against any person for any information relating to the commission of or possible commission of violation of conditions of release pending judicial proceedings given by a person to law enforcement officer shall be guilty of a fifteen thirteen b to its retaliation against  law enforcement officer upon further legal review the government with true that and the parties agreed upon the definition of the law enforcement officer which included a pretrial service officer i mean fact by statute under eighteen u fifteen fifteen a for the law enforcement officers defined by pretrial service officer and in this particular case the pretrial service officer who was the witness to the defendant's violation of his  correct he did and then the officers showed up and that's right there but there isn't anything in the statute or in the elements required to establish that the death the defendant knows  release of violations to the officers themselves before they executed the warrant therefore i mean there's a that the if the record establishes that the that the victim in this case  reporting person also told her supervisor you know that for that year and that your retaliation is because she did that rather than because you reported to the judge i don't think the defendant has to know  as a matter of fact the process by which i come is violations are going to be reported whether or not she reported say hypothetically that the pretrial service officer in this case burke reported it  violations by this particular i defended and that's why they had to take extra precautions if you will is this house gets back to what i characterize as a metaphysical question was trying to ask the fans care you know it's it's it's not clear to me where where the re not not that in fact that that that as a matter of fact happened that's that's the vets what i'm trying to pin down and there is that your direct parsing of that language it's focuses on his state of mind that he is retaliating because he thinks she reported him to a law enforcement officer that's a that's right whether she did or not is is not that not that consequential it is not afaik that's what the statute protects because most defendants in most lay people don't know how a is issued and don't know why an officer would show up focusing on his state of mind and there's no evidence that he knew that amber burke was going to report it to anybody other than the judge lester and you have to draw inferences from think she's responsible for this arrest he said specifically i know why you guys are here i know why i'm getting arrested and that's because you guys you know whatever told you no not at told you nothing irrespective of the vanderburgh providing information to the to the defendant that she was going to report his violations to the judge and i think in prior conversations she had actually informed him of the consequences and that bail could be review could be could be revoked but i think in this particular case the agents when they arrived were confronted with  communicate with the agents about the violations and actually prompted his arrest and it wasn't the judge that did so thank you you thank you clients and then the agents going in to rescue it was amber burke going to the judge and asking for a warrant and the judge to issue a warrant mr johnson had absolutely no knowledge about what the circumstances were behind the scene all that when the agents arrived to arrest him of course he knows why they're there because amber burke told it i'm going to go to the judge and that was the retaliation in the best case getting the evidence in the best like to the government that's their intent and if you're in question i have opposing counsel when she had anything about what she was going to do and the proceedings went along the same way what would your months should granted the end of the government's case laboratory because he would have no awareness of anything about how the information travels whether she gives the information to anyone whether she herself can just finish aid on her own the decision to arrest him but you're asking us to rule that unless the dependent knows it's likely how the information travels in the criminal justice system there can be no valid you know just that the defendant has to have awareness that the information that he believes is going to be