that the child had no friends and was severely introverted did you offer anything for a long perspective witnesses themselves no he did not because it wasn't the evidence even assuming that it's appropriately proffered which is it like mr should bond's position is that he was acting in the best interests of his son but isn't the standard for us whether she knowingly and intentionally took the child out of the country in contravention of the child's mother's custodial rights and it seems that as long as that finding stands it doesn't really matter what additional evidence there may be mr additional intent to advance his son's interests at trial the jury needed to determine whether he intended to struck the mother's mental rights and our argument is that this evidence would have undermined the government's proof of that by showing that he had that he acted with a different motivation a different intent to be perhaps  degree of the problem that the teacher and the social worker would have testified to they would have testified and he presented evidence at the hearing that they couldn't control the child and request concern about the burning problems of his son have to do with it because it undermines proof that his intention was to obstruct by interfere certainly his conduct interfered but the question is what were his intentions and if his intentions if there's a reason why are we out of the findings that he had all these conversations where he acknowledged that what he was doing would upset the mother and that he used deception he lied to her about what he was doing what  mix i think that that evidence goes toward the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction and the court has found that it was sufficient it doesn't necessarily  completely undermine his argument of the argument he wanted to make to the jury that he intended to help his son  doubt that he intended to interfere with the custody rights of  ask you to repeat it again think when more recently that next kind of case of palin has to make a quote unquote comprehensive showing of what the evidence would have been has to say precisely court of quote what the evidence would have been and then how he or she was prejudiced by that evidence and judge hogan in this case at two o five the appendix quoted ask you and those sections in detail in making his findings he was very well aware of why in this case helen had not put forward any evidence from the social worker or the teacher and he made a point of saying the teacher's testimony would have been unfavorable based on what the truck council said and the social workers testimony came in the only evidence about what the social worker would have said actually came in a trial through the mother who said what the social worker told her and so appellant submitted pleading responding to each of the responses in the trial counsel's affidavit and because he was in saudi arabia he was permitted to adopt that as his testimony and there was no cross examination so there was never any teasing out of well appellate mates and allegations here there unattributed you know was this what the teacher would have said is this what the social worker would have said there was and there's nothing in the record about what t witnesses would have said or how it could have prejudiced him not to call those witnesses all we know is that the truck ounces said i interviewed i had two witnesses to the school interview their testimony would have been unfavorable my focus instead on the government's evidence and the government had thirty one recorded phone calls between my client and the mother in which my client is telling why he took the child to egypt i thought the best way to get my opinions that are going to hurt my client like the kid was doing well the kid didn't need to go to egypt to trial testimony so i got my case in that way and then on cross examination of the mother he was able to elicit that hey the appellant told the mother this child is doing well in each of the child i will bring the child back and he in fact did bring the child back that permitted him to argue that look ladies and gentlemen my client was just trying to help his son he was concerned he was found there was no question that all this evidence was in front of the jury just on the proffer question mr save all if these two witnesses who were unwilling for example to give a declaration themselves is it your position that they would have had to be to depose in order to support the ineffective assistance crime that's an interesting question i don't have an answer to that certainly there is an obligation to make a comprehensive showing  witnesses wouldn't have been available certainly one gave a statement that to the investigator without any kind of work process the first time there's no reason to think that she wouldn't have come back to the evidentiary hearing and we just don't know anything about the social worker information and say hey that would have been right if you have to put flesh on the bones and that wasn't done but in any event that the truck or focus was not to say so much on process the trial court said look i'm going to say that what appellant said in his pleading would have come out of trial and this would not have made any difference it wouldn't have made any difference because there was no question that the child had communication there was no question that dad took the child to egypt to help him out and to bring him back but that really wasn't the point the point was that we had evidence of lying of subterfuge and the jury heard this evidence in the jury rejected it and precisely what the teacher and social worker would have tested to the extent that that was not teased out is the government's problem for not crosses examining him and i would argue that it's really the government imprecise by offering testimony simply that they are testimony would not have been favorable