even if the position to review was deny filing a timely one keeps the aid the statute of limitations from starting up during the months that the court is considering the situation and for an extra ninety days after the denial which as you might recall was the council's principal blunder  because not only did file counsel not come up with a single correct calculation of the statute of limitations but he went fishing for two months when in theory the could have tried to file mr mcbride's petition by his i'll get back to you and may remember your last day for filing is june twenty eighth so i consider that client abandonment it's certainly good enough to bring it bring this case within within beeler where it's really not clear and deal or just what level of it's a fundamental principle of equity that for every every wrong there is a remedy and that's that's clearly not the case here when your lawyers for is when you're his counsel screwed up there is no remedy now to the extent that there is room to reach a different result in this case i think it is highly equitable to say that attorney negligence in miscalculating the filing date as opposed to other train negligence and just screwing up and not getting additional trial should be grounds for equitable tolling and the reason is in these equitable tolling cases when we're looking at does the petitioner deserve equity one fundamental thing that we would look at is did the petitioner exercise monitor the performance of haiti's counsel and it's some point he can call up and say what he's doing like like they did in spitz and case why why aren't you helping me out here there were questions asked whether he did that in a diligent manner but when and at some point he can take over and get the concerned about potentially an exhaustive claims paid his counsel was concerned about potentially weak ladies i don't i don't know that there's a meaningful difference on the question of petitioners diligence on a difference of opinion about the trial tactics i think the petition has i don't know i can't tell you whether or not he is counsel was correct about whether these claims the petitioner wanted to include were exhausted or not so if i understand your argument correctly it is that doesn't really have much to do with the timing because counsel could have filed what he thought  in the middle of that standing with mr mcbride as materials and saying good luck to you you know so i don't think the fact that they had just agreements about the content of the petition really weighs against mr mcbride's exercise of finding that he exercise diligence mr technically i guess nine days later and a couple of months earlier the navy his counsel would have gotten around to filing it i think that's that's speaks volumes about his diligence and unless the court has  and he could have done it right around well my right my my response to so that is that he was having disagreements with his counsel about the content of the petition he was under the impression that he had until june twenty eighth in which to file his petition and he filed this petition by i believe april sixteenth april ninth they gave him the benefit of the mailbox rule i don't i don't look at this fact scenario and say that this guy was sitting on his hands and not behaving diligently which is which gets into why attorney negligence and miscalculating statute of limitations as opposed to just not doing the work should be grounds for equitable trolling because it totally screws up the petitioner's how we evaluate the petitioner diligence it's totally unfair to say well this guy gave him incorrect advice about the statute of limitations but he still should have somehow gotten a petition on file in a week when he thought he had three months to do it the exceptional aspect maybe i spend too