issues that if he wished to be presented perham or the record of the trial including the trial and the post trial motions and sentencing in reality this case was not than saying i will i dismiss it because of what the state said and the reality of this case is the incompetence of the consul throughout the entire time till this post there were three different attorneys in this case prior to my being involved and some the original attorney mr specter if i can say he clearly did anything including showing up i don't think i would be speaking out of turn he didn't come on the day of trial he called and said i'm going to be there lately was supposed to be there he basically never did any investigation this stat stems from a traffic stop the basis of the traffic stop was supposedly a a motion to suppress that's the only thing he did filed a motion to suppress the staff during that motion and there was also a drug dog hit on the car the market for found in the air cleaner of the car klein was supposed to have given a statement he never filed a motion to suppress the statement he never sought a discovery to determine the reliability of the dog sniff to determine whether the go on him proved to be reliable by prior hits which were recorded he never sought to obtain any information whatsoever regarding an investigation so he could put on a meaningful motion to suppress for trial is a major effect in the direct appeal of this case was found guilty mr specter never even came back it was an individual by the name of mr prosek event comes for the post trial motion and whose posts have ocean in the transcripts of the proceeding he goes well i don't really have one and i'm going to use  just make some changes and i really have no argument to be made so he files a boilerplate motion doesn't have the transcript doesn't even attempt to get the transcript of before filing these posts from motions and basically also waves tence of counsel i believe i don't it's very hard for me in this case because from the time i read it it was very disturbing to me there these things occur looks at the record and reads the record he doesn't raise one issue regarding their ineffective assistance of counsel which is the main issue is i see it for peel just as an example which you guys illegal stop we're not contesting or we're this point we have no comment as to the evidence of any possession if if it's a closing argument which is by and effective attorney i'm not sure what would repeat it but he creates a motion to dismiss and he says for the reasons the state said well the reason the state said was that there had been the showing i don't know how anyone could read this record and not at least come to any type of defense or representation and the movement doesn't have to prove prejudice it would have it would be impossible to prove prejudice in this case at the time he after an appeal after the post can trial motions had been filed him through the sentencing after the trial transcript trial had he had based on a transcript it gives us no information and in this case i believe that this court should reverse the attorney registration and disciplinary have been found guilty of neglect in nine criminal matters got put on probation because he had a drug problem and then violated their probation within the last year and i believe this place inception of the traffic stop as well as defend his claim that he was never realized of course the problem with those arguments are is that they were never substantiated by anything that was attached to the post conviction position that  problem that the public raises here and that there's been no not just meaningful there's really been no evidentiary hearing at all in this case that the trial court proceedings lol because inception by convincing the trial court merely through his own testimony and there's no showing the record that that he had that there was any possible way for them to obtain dr terry evidence pictures or videos for example that that would have  shown either him driving before the traffic stop or the condition of these air fresheners after the traffic stop so if your thing had to go on with his own words then it i so that's why something that's going to result in an automatic finding thanks to system so but we get to this point in the the authority appears clear that in order to substantiate the factual allegations statements in his side document undergo before somebody who is authorized to give of us so that is one reason why that is the primary reason i think the only reason why the state i overturn the dismissal of her post conviction here and here clearly what she's saying is the lawyer did think that she's mr voltaire didn't put forth any evidence whatsoever to show that he was right not driving in the left lane for short investigate it he didn't do anything to put forth any type of meaningful representation what your honor said is true this appears to be somewhat of a just a blood guilty plea now true or i don't know if they're saying well it was dismissed because he didn't have a notarized if david first of all he did but second of all there certainly wouldn't cry out for dismissal if the first prong or the evidentiary hearing because the trial record itself bloomberg we don't have to show prejudice with respect to why we're asking you to be remanded to a different judge well there's two reasons one based on what happened in the case in tesco early and what i perceived and perhaps my perception was incorrect from the record in being there it was there was a bias towards the state additionally there was a poll which came out through the