that in the first hearing of course the judge to whom that the request withdraw the plea was presented found after hearing the evidence that this was a johnny come lately claim that it was hard to believe incorrect and you can see that by the admissions of defendants the titian or zone counsel when he got to the next stage of proceedings the petitioner would have you believe that well it's not conceivably possible that when experts and found that it was particularly persuaded by the attorney's statement that it was defendant who directed him that he wanted to plead guilty he didn't want to contest it he wanted my opponent would have this court believe that court in this letter opinion the post conviction court gave some thoughtful commentary about some of the defense experts these other depends attorneys were some of the most excellent attorneys that could be presented in court system one of them now being a judge and yet nevertheless you know that those witnesses nor even the secretary who that judge applauded poor parents were privy to any  advice between the person who pled guilty and mr chabot none of them were there and as much as they can say you should have done this you should have done that and there are a lot of things that we might agree that there are other more things that could have been done more psychologists i could have been contacted but the fact the matter is none of those people are privy to the direct conversations and in those direct conversations petitioner says one thing i've heard the attorney sa probably the most disturbing component of the magistrate's finding later adopted by the district court was it walks through several of the evaluations by three separate state court  effects in the procedure that is was this person on a quarter to full hearing was you prohibited from operating evidence and when we have a situation we have not one or two but three full blown hearings on the very same claims over and over penitentiary and a probationary sentence is exactly what his new attorney advocate for in front of all of court third is of course the matter of the fingerprint and there again petition bears the burden of showing did not even rise to the level that the defense could enter any plea of insanity he therefore informed his client that he had no defense available to him don't know your honor when he makes the categorical statement that the doctors reports did not support the defense that is that they did not to pick a mental illness that he had  consequently did not have the defense a mental defense could be waged in the case this is not simply a matter of probabilities as to corn and hill challenge how much time did just spend talking to mr weaver about the defenses he might be able to raise and his responses we talked several times then about the options he had about the factors involved there were questions concerning his available options and of the potential cantons that information is from a further developed later in that hearing at page one forty five where there's this times concerning what his desires were and what he wanted to do and then very importantly in page eighty four of that same deposition in jail in the jail conversation which presumably took place on the day of the pl because he had told his secretary that he didn't make enough money in the case to drive over to the jail prior to that he said that mr weaver's decision was made and that he considered all of the factors involved  quoting from his testimony he then states page eighty six i went over and over with him what they meant when talking about the authors so this was clearly a defendant not exhibiting an imp to plead guilty no matter what this was a defendant who was concerned about his options when our counsel we are sitting as a federal court after the state has had many rounds in this subjectively on a reasonable and i was bending state of oregon court findings to the contrary you're on a really there's four findings that are relevant to this case there were other finding ineffectiveness determination by the state court quoted at page nine seventy eight of lambert as well so the next trying thing is that the reasoning of judge gilroy is persuasive there are several reasons why that determination is one reason of all your honor several very important reasons number one we know objectively that judge gilroy got the facts wrong in one thousand nine hundred three if you look at negotiated a package deal so to speak that subjected you to maximum punishment on two of the charges he had a misunderstanding as to the scope of hundred shrimp that mr weave specifically told his lawyer that he should not take calls collect calls from mr weaver told him told the secretary that because he said he was guilty we're not going to do any more work on the case that information was not available to judge the overall and therefore it was objectively on reasonable when it came before the post in which in court for that court to just look at judg unreasonable but that should or should be rejected the court had to consider all of this information and we've decided tailor versus maddox on this point that that disregards or mishap freehand important information before it is rendering and on a reasonable determination for those reasons or on a leaf findings of fact some of which as i mentioned are conclusions of law was objectively and reasonable again and i'd like to talk about the insanity defense for a moment judge all right cards go right said that this information was just not important to him it was very important because it support this defense but there were several who did not and call that was nothing there your honor i would take issue with that there were two psychologists who were not involved for purpose for forensic purposes who did not find the elements of the insanity defense one of the doctors told mr chabot expressly please don't consider my evaluation as any kind of forensic evaluation the fi doctors who got involved for forensic purposes supported the defense that in another self is a strength other than that of itself is an important point that should have been conveyed to the client about the potential for raising this defen after dixon found a qualifying mental illness the personality disorder and i would just interrupt myself for a moment to point out that even before this case was indicted state versus a rans i did it found a mental disease or defect as well and that as a result of that he was unable to conform his behavior to the confines of the law dr coolish the most important psychologist here opinion that mr weaver was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law so the evidence that he acquires after making that particular  opposing counsel has made the point that well it still wasn't very strong and i would point in particular also to page twenty one twenty two of their brief where they have  the reply brief and in that particular portion of their brief they trying to diminish the significance of the report from the state's psychologist which was mcnutt that well you know in response to a question he says weaver might have got a kick out of it but he was still compelled to do it the state takes that statement and how psychiatrically damaged his or her client is and that as a result and not conform has climbed up to the requirements of the law certainly in the john hinckley case involving the attempted assassination of the court they argued that there was no defense available and that the report didn't rise to the level of the defense as i pointed out on the final page of my chronology that recently submitted to the court when the case then the state's position shifts it's now that well you might have a defense you might not but it was not likely to succeed those two positions are in conflict and they undermine the state's request that there be deference to an alternative finding to the extent that finding was made at all since my time is running out i'd like to just score one point  critical even when a defendant voices craft even decent motivations concerning the effect of a trial on the victim for the defense lawyer to provide informed lawyer doesn't present a viable defense assuming it's supported by the record of entrapment that's not an informed plea the defendant still has to be told that he ha bailable defenses and then the attorney may elucidate upon that with information about their strengths strengths and weaknesses and is not what happened here with a client who had clear questions open questions about his actions concerns about his alternatives this attorney failed to provide competent minimally competent legal advice concerning the defenses available to mr weaver and i did not get to the time has expired the phrase just argued will be submitted for decision