shift the focus for a moment from the standard oh review the question because that that is actually a rather unique issue given the presence of the four fifty five eight issue or the other trial court rulings but speaking only for myself i'd like to focus on the recusal issue and your recusal motion and i want to make sure i understand what it says am i correct in my reading of the recusal motion that even if the lead defense counsel at trial had not presented judge tucker with an award this issue because frankly i'm not impressed by their dual membership in this organization on the more you want to and even a kid that you were careful in your motion but there was one statement in that presented by counsel in the case at a time when the case was pending and language like this seemed to me to at least confuse it and perhaps introduce the unfortunate racial issue collegial for instance because irish american if it's people with blue eyes it it tends to narrow if you will someone to the association of times and it makes it more collegial it of course it's not just our guys but the problem here is you're narrowing brought it when this when his response which triggered all this came out i thought this is not the time to parse i was devastated i never had something like that counsel food the defense pretty much prompted the response doing an internet search in will often do that on judges if not immediately but we'll just try to find out if there's anything out that we did with with this court that might be helpful for us in in here in appearing before that we did i think about two weeks before this w words such as this by opposition in the case of which he will be making poor decisions judge dow i want to give you an opportunity to get in here from a distance me where in the trial record the issue raised is implicated in any way other then the question asked by counsel which included a reference to section three o two that is the question that was asked are you able to give us an opinion a reasonable degree of psychological certainty as to whether or not called with a vendor had reasonable grounds to believe that michael mark cabbage was severely mentally disabled any needed treatment and then pursuant to section three hundred two the mental health procedure that you it was over rule and the wise yes absolutely isn't that at the time and as president the legal intelligence or called me for an interview as to why these individual that was during the pendency of this case that was not without question and there are liable to they filed a motion to refuse which was toni suggested that judge tucker's mirrors association with the bears association in his papers as well as the way he described t to the organization being neither broad based new or racially diverse yes it is there yet but what i want to know is on that single one that is there anything else in this record whether it's in the other basis and i argued that in my motion that greece had nothing to do with good for him to raise that because she was a member of an organization that i happen to be a member of which was principally an african american organization harking back to days that this court decades later the race based tactic such as one present is still employed well if that can step concerns me now you know you can conclude or you can argue what you want to argue  that maybe she did violate the impartiality requirement of four fifty five a in her written ruling relative to the race issue and this is why i've been asking you you have the impact upon or its teaching as to how we should handle this possible four fifty five violation let me into your question first by saying i will only go by what's in the record after that so it is calculated by some time to chew over dr rosen size testimony as well as her expert witness report i'm going to turn her back to the four fifty five also examined the places she said based upon these net and university said it is reasonable for university officer to have an individual examine the circumstances chords were all relevant according to the lower court judge those would have could have a profound impact injury wise with respect to supporting your claim making it possibly opposition more likely than not