filings before the tolling period were relevant because he read his condition must have been worse back then a quick review of the record will show that this is not the case where he was more organized than coherent during some periods prior to the telling period that he ever words turn creates in the to bridgewater may have found that his behavior was non problematic he wasn't hurting other inmates any more but that doesn't mean that he wasn't preoccupied with blue shield ruminations paranoia many times it's a friend who actually was brought into themselves so that he's not bothering other patients is not necessarily an indication that he's sane at that time council you know we were focused on basically a thirty four month period between april of ninety six in march of ninety nine and in fact at the beginning of that period he was finally in november for to dismiss for exhaustion doesn't that tell us that during that time period he was certainly not so severely here that he would not through legal re f he was not effectively personally for legal relief that that your honor his of course his revised revoked motion was years late and had already been filed by his original counsel his requesting dismissal of his second he had this petition is why we're back a longer period of time and more concentration he has to remember to follow up on filings that he makes which is a consistent problem that he has simply his periods a sanity are too short to to account for his being able to successfully file this fourth one for t up on his letters on his revised provoke motion and his hideous addition in another losing period following that and it's possible that this court said that perhaps some of that period would be would not be told but over the entire period  new trial that the district courts play based its first ruling on that because this court to reverse and so he he goes back and says that again in his first affidavit that's on page eighty four ninety but can i ask you how to think about the standard of review and what it means for us here so if if the evidence is that he's got a very serious mental disability or  but the way it manifests itself is there's obviously periods of lucidity because the filings demonstrate that right that he can make filings that are that sole person at the same time the filings art timely which is why we reach equitable to all right so then you can read it by the way that shows that he has an impairment which manifests itself in untimely death and therefore you shouldn't be charged with it alternative so if that's what the record looks like we then give it to a district court and we're supposed to review that district court finding with some deference if they make a bunch of factual errors we were versus them and we did in this  as an important factor and actually that was the basis that he used to distinguish our primary case which was otherwise extremely close to revisit you ation then he graner and that was from his to district of new york in two thousand and three the petitioner in that case was taking out his psychotic medication he he was essentially and the district court when they went back to this stick wished that case based on the end of it where they mentioned that the petitioner in that case then the printer was also very intellectually disabled so  later finally i would say that the coherence of his leadings is less important than whether they are the right pleadings whether to follow up on he convinced the judge wants to have less to let him have his head x rayed because he thought that he had a childhood obviously he can write pleadings that are put together in paranoia throughout the the record in numerous i like to use my last minute and possibly take the two minutes i reserved to discuss actual innocence before you just one more question is there any evidence directly medications i would posit this is not an example the fact of use of the legal system not only is there no proof he ever actually sent a letter that was replied to but he must have been told many many many times at this point that there is no way he can he can force them to make them take off th connection between mr reavis mental capacity and his ability to navigate legal channels but the the considerable investigation went into satisfying what were the gaps and omissions and misrepresentations and other things that went on in the original the the the the would considerably expanded these commonwealth retained a forensic psychologist to respond to the petitioners forensic psychologists because one of the i conducted several hearings and we had extensive the the commonwealth extensively reviews and try to locate of the papers and pleadings of mr reeve during this particular cohen period his burden of proving that there was any causal connection between his mental illness and the fact that he was quite late in in filing his petition and with  that everything his lawyers that during that particular period and i would suggest to this poor that there was no abuse of discretion and judge walther concluding that there was no causal connection there is certainly no doubt and the decision a judge will base his his decision on seven factors and i can go through the very quickly one of them is the one thousand and ninety six he was corpus petition he he appealed to this court he he he actually filed and it's an in the record of course several motions but in this particular trolling period that indicate that he knew exactly what was going on he he correctly noted that there was no exhaustion of the state remedies so we withdrew his his petition but in contemporaneous with that and  this particular case and he was going through it point by point regarding you know his what the court had wanted wanted him to analyzed in this particular case some of the this case with his attorney there's a there's a letter and they have them in the record of mr weaver writing to his trial attorneys to spend ali who he was very unhappy with but at some some civil rights actions two of them that we proceeded to completion one of them reverses cacho was regarding the grievance procedures and bridgewater he's six he was succeeded before and his ability to navigate and with the case and there's been no connection in the petition it really has not one of his burden of proving such such a causal reason and so stressing his mental health d he had the commonwealth was alerted to this motion to revise we got that was trimmed period and they filed him competing memoranda over a period of time it was denied but didn't prevent him from writing briefs writing letters having coherent reasoning in the letter but it prevented him from even perceiving what he should be doing those things about you know it's if someone files concord brace for five years with absolutely written letters saying that martians are controlling their behavior we wouldn't find them competent now this isn't as extreme but what about the argument that it's  the the fact of the matter is the judge felt that they rather than being repetitive they were as lawyers great of course they hear he has certain one another i mean that's really to be honest with you that's a legal decision that's not a forensic psychologist can look at pleadings and have one idea and i think the way can look at them and have another idea   we argue in our brief and i would reiterate that this actually shows the opposite what he needed to do next was to go back to state court and exhaust those issues not to file the exact same hideous petition again and have dismissed again for the same reasons i would also point out that many