federal law what is the impact of the period of more than a year on which we have no real ending it is absolutely a question of federal law all right to determine whether something remains pending file his petition and they permitted that so i'm not understanding how they're permitting that is a declaration  party and federalism notion that the state courts are equal partners and manage their docket and i find i think it would be highly unlikely that the oregon supreme court would allow him to go ten years without some kind of explanation as was the next case details about the incarcerated person who is depending on this attorney has been attorney completely abandoned him unlike the other cases where the attorney either spirals that the files that lay or doesn't read the rules this is just a complete abandonment and so i think that why and the reason is because as counsel points out the supreme court in past set forth the standards and they are are diligently pursuing your state court remedies and there and it cannot be that it has to be an extraordinary circumstance protective federal habeas corpus petition in which you explain to the district court i don't know if my state collateral remedies action is currently proceeding and that's tolling the statute of limitations why should he do that he's got a lawyer who's handling the case for why should he do that well a couple of reasons your honor first of all under oregon state law it is state his conviction fictitious obligation him or herself to diligently shepherd his own case through the state p c r proceedings their organs state court gives states cases on point which indicate that that is his obligation and not his attorney's obligation additionally this court has held time and time again that attorney negligence including  calls he would return my mother's calls couldn't get my file from him this is more than just mis reading the statute of limitations has disappeared from the face of the earth well you're right i would suggest that the evidence in the record on that point is is before this court and additionally however i think you can tell that in this case it's not the type of extraordinary circumstance that this part identified in states and where the petitioners federal he is corpus attorney and that's one difference here we're talking about a state p c r attorney negligence versus the federal attorneys negligence there in space and the attorney affirmatively stopped the petitioner from being able to file a press a petition for a v s farkas or from hiring another attorney because the attorney refused  court and i think all we know is suppose based on those will you have to show something you know he had to show so i would imagine so however if we just don't know what the basis for the organ supreme court's decision was i would suggest that  old talked about there are a lot of reasons why in that instance the california supreme court might elect to consider on the merits a clearly untimely filing of one of those was that they would want to give the petitioner the satisfaction just merely the satisfaction of knowing that it wasn't purely a procedural bar that prevented him from being successful it struck your office to interview i believe there is evidence in the record that the state court administrator's office who handles appointments of this sort referred this matter to the bar petitioners can diligently pursue their rights is by filing protective petitions if you are i don't think any indication that petitioner was diligently pursuing this federal devious purpose writes in fact evidence that he knew how to pursue his own right when he called up the court on his own albeit a year later there's nothing to indicate that he could not have done this at some point sooner and the court has any other questions i'll reali understand there are many reasons why a court would be silent on a timely issue this is not california and in that case in saffold and then also in travis was that there were no rules in california