systems was one reason well first of all we shouldn't be here discussing this case because sixty one see if it's follow moving at this issue come on  that but the specific and reasonable representation is first of all she did not and any kind of evidence to the we don't know if they have been wild because six fifty one scene wasn't followed like i said before if you follow will never hear this because she would have to explain why there is no i won't eat i'm looking at her first claim in the first amended petition of the petition she filed she lists the legend some sort of conflict in that you know there was an inappropriate conflict because mr tuck and made himself a witness in the case is that some indication that she may have done some investigation because i've assuming he made himself a witness by issuing this letter so can we take sound something from that particular allegation in her first petition if it's follow we will we don't have to gas you want to presume we will know you have a record to go by right now we know we don't have a record and if it had been done song for whatever reasons the you know no do not follow the rules and if she had some problem with a bad letter that she has to play why it wasn't cash we don't have to guess why or pursue why she did it the rule question because of the tiffany visit he's had some of the problems generally in lake county that have come up in cases that we have heard is there anything that you're aware of that might prevent her from turning one maybe get into those on behalf of her client i mean he is he's had a history of what he claims himself is so depression and possible mental illness you know i do not see there as being something where counsel would not be following the rules because she would have to explain to the judge when the rule of power is true that says this very clear trial it was was corroborated by the testimony oath of the person from the child and give it to see center and the testimony about the details about the sex and right i mean that's what he is saying if the victim came in and never said anything about him at all it was all about her mother but she testified at trial and she testified against him and her mother on the water clearly the detectives told the water that they switched it to falsely accuse you that's what the letter says you and then he explained it stood at the appropriate time somebody will have to investigate these claims what is that post conviction the appropriate time that he was in the post conviction counsel ok what also has to rise to something that you absolutely could not have discovered prior to trial that he had access to the child he had to cross examine the child he actually  services after the trial wrongly at trial counsel saying hey by the way you were framed is something they can justifiably be left off the p c which we should how does counsel ignore that kind of clearly she did not do that but then the question rise accounts up to is this reasonable assistance and the answer is no because what could these what do detectives testified these people testified they were says the detectives at some point time this is after trial this is new information to the fund and otherwise why would he be telling him in the letter what this is the harm in sending it back and having post conviction counsel flesh it out and explain why i didn't get it today which because this is as you suggest it is nonsense it's going nowhere it's a dead end that's the problem a reasonable level of