quote on the bottom of page four in our reply brief we have the full quote he says if you have to rely on that you just have to confess the rich should be granted the only way the state can say this is to invoke a statute t permits a parole agent and none was involved in this case putting a hold on somebody's already unlawful custody usually by another jurisdiction because commune good faith believes there's been a violation of the terms and conditions of  you have to complete all five steps of the program at a task of the era before you're even let out before you even consider to be let out and the initial the initial so he knows violation the violation was at the point where this happened the state court did not have jurisdiction the state court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the first proceeding without that  independent and separate of each other not having any effect on one another and what i'm telling you and i can present you want to court is that you want to clean up the first one in his favor not render that's  under a d p a you don't have to have a supreme court case directly on point with applied it in this very factual situation fortunately we don't have states going around with extraordinary negligence which is what the state ok so what we have here is what the court was this court was faced with in three cases harms versus thomas luna versus camera willcox worse is making each one of those cases there was a silence denial and he b s matter in haim's oregon parole that regulations were examined by this court to determine the ex post facto claim in lieu not the california evidentiary law was examined in detail by this court to determine the we must determine whether the first indictment was fatally defective under state law if there were a state decision by the state court on the skate block question here of course this court would need to defer t case was consistent with california law look we have to look at the action of the state court imagine what they could have done is the reasonable way that they could  not exist under california law if the state had acted negligently or intentionally to keep the inmate incarcerated in order to retain jurisdiction in an asked b p case that's johnson versus nelson citing whitley two there are the only thing that was extraordinary in this case was the extraordinary negligence of the state officials there were four things the state officials did here in this case they identified mr jackson as a potential s p p on december twenty s nothing was done for a full month after that month they put it they imposed this sham parole under the penal code section two days later he was first evaluated by psychiatry by the psychologist they waited another three weeks until he was evaluated by the second psychologist now were it february twenty first were four days before he was originally scheduled to be released do you think they get on the phone and call the county and say evaluations done they needed to give it to the county to get the petition filed they don't get on the phone they wait another two days they send out form letter to them and they send it to the wrong county sorry we go so what do they do then these ten the same form letter to sacramento county again apparently by regular mail nothing changed nothing you know you know we've got to get going on this case we're already past the deadline nothing and finally so they may file it finally in the right county in sacramento by this time it is late march i and you look at the fast as you are obligated to do under wilcox under camera and under under heim's as you are obligated to do you cannot take seriously what happened in  e saying there was a jurisdiction that's correct and if you read the two if you read wakefield if you read the california cases that the attorney general is relying upon they are distinguished and they're clearly was already in prison and so under three zero five six he cannot return him to prison and that's very clear after in re law in one nine hundred seventy three supreme court decision of the california supreme court so that's the difference that was really a regulatory hold a forty five day hole well for that there has to be extraordinary circumstances and the only thing extraordinary in this case was the negligence of the administration in sending it to bringing stuff sooner it's actually this morning that the idea came to me and after talking to the d a in the case of sacramento d a mr jackson voluntarily recommitted himself three times in this case and on may twentieth of ninety nine august first of two thousand and one and may sixteenth two thousand and three that's a current commitment that he has on each commitment he's entitled to a jury trial prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he has a present threat completely different commitment this court can address the issue as it is a threshold question to jurisdiction and this court and and i can as much as guerrero seven or seven f second for forty three that that he would no longer be in a position to be asked to make that choice between either going to the dirty county jail and facing a jury or to a commitment prior and earlier commitment did not follow what the state did not follow the procedures of state law and ordering to extend by three days and i think stand by forty five days now it's important to note that the s p p a act went into effect in january first of ninety six that was reset county where he had his original his two great convictions were out of it's a reasonable mistake to send it to that county where his current custody was out of sacramento county where he didn't have any rape convictions and that was handled relatively quickly foot on as an extraordinary measure because it was coming up against his timeframe and then he had a probable cause hearing that before the three days extended which extended by forty five days actually probable cause code three o five six on the printed form it's also mentioned that's under california code of regulations title fifteen twenty six hundred point one and i have made the argument below that they follow that provision however in reexamining issue three or five six would apply to this case as it's noted that i have a quote here prisoners on parole still remain under the legal custody of the department and shall be subject at any time to be taken back within the enclosure  take him back and they did that for three days and they had a they place to hold based on probable cause at that point determine his release date is coming up we don't have our paperwork in order to commit this guy who's been scre sexually violent predator let's place a three day hold that gives us some time to get the paperwork in order and have a probable cause hearing which they wound up having on february twenty seventh ninety six the board of prison term which indicates that in exceptional circumstances the so much been identified as meeting s p p a criteria they could place a three day hold on them to verify or to get the paperwork in order and then within that time they need to hold  cause hearing which is exactly what happened in this case but they have the first correct but he wasn't custody and he was in custody on the prison on his pro hold and they extended his release date by three days he had a february twenty fifth ninety six original release date how do they do that by holding they have a piece of paper that they fill out that he's met these criteria he's likely to be an f p p and a place to hold based on the code of regulations twenty six hundred point circumstances which would have to be met in this case when obama went into effect about forty five days before his release date a brand new law and they followed follow the law i mean they followed the regulations then the statute and even if it doesn't apply it's a good faith exception this isn't where they're just extending it randomly they're following their procedures and following the laws to extend this guy in prison while they get the paperwork in order having probable cause hearing