petition make a substantial showing of multiple constitutional violations and why post conviction counsel failed to comply supreme court rules six of the few ones duties in this case every prior tragedy as been appointed to allowing the jury to hear from multiple witnesses at the complainant had a financial motive to fabricate the allegations against bradley track counsel failed to call numerous relevant drug debt to she made false accusations of sexual assault against multiple coworkers an attempt to shake down her former employer former employers for money to satisfy that debt three when those plans failed she falsely accused bradley of the incident ends and four after he was arrested on the internet dance she stalked twenty five hundred dollars with the help of drell new bill bradley's bank account so well if you actually take a look at the representations in the investigators notes she kept trying to get this money from her husband and he kept saying i want to go with the pay that because he wants  despite there being relevant evidence that should have been presented regarding this financial model the trial court prevented bradley from questioning parker on the false salt allegation against her coworkers and these are the most salient ones because these occurred before she has badly arrested so she's trying to get this money from two other sources before she's having him locked up and then steals his money after h offer any reason why that why she wouldn't accept that it's in the investigators know it's it's just seems that she didn't want that to happen at all of course that goes to the potentially that there are issues raised in the brea regarding post conviction counsels to get the requisite affidavits that he needs to under people the analysts that in order to support a claim regarding fair to call witnesses you need to support it with you have to comply with the law in order to represent here client affectively under six that you won't see turning back to a power counsel's deficient performance by not raising false allegations as part of one cohesive right to present a has the allegations and after the allegations she is trying to satisfy in massive drug that the a whatever means she can whether it's also accusing people of sexual assault or work whether it's having your husband locked up that evening in bloomington she's beat up and then he took the clothes away the next day i believe or two days later and this is not the only instance where and i asked to be state's burden to demonstrate her most yet reasonable doubt and direct appeal and i don't know how they would show that it was harmless beyond reasonable doubt is this essentially he said she said case who caused her injuries so the timeline here and i do understand this this is kind of us sort of case you know we have this timeline back from the fall of two thousand and fifteen to the spring of two thousand and sixteen she's making these all sexual assault bradley bradley says ok i'm not it for you here's want to do that that she goes and has him locked up and steals the money from  false sexual assault allegations about us at work right around the same time she's got a massive drug debt and where she's claiming to objective hospital staff that i'm getting beat up in wilmington because  she said to the jury i told brett the i had an affair but she never admitted she had an affair to the jury michael and would have personally personally observed her having an affair multiple times in the summer of two thousand and six with impeach from that filing the state claims that this this court's decision saying the evidence was overwhelming under appeal falls flat because frankly this court didn't help all of this other evidence oh there's all this other financial motive jury determination whether the victim actually believe this was a working functioning firearm and i think the reason was her petition of her testimony was that when she was asked this is a working gun statements at the pretrial motion eliminating laying out this financial motive for these false sexual saw allegations further the same kind of wants to take the postcondition the titian piecemeal investigators know where he explains she was trying to get this money by falsely accusing people of sexual saw the important part of their affidavit is that the false allegations of sexual assault occurred and that these are two highly credible witnesses these are not people that are connected to bradley or savage other than their employment and that's why a third stage evidentiary hearing is so important in this case because taken is true which we have to if you give me even more money because she's already stolen the money via drone newbill then she's in january of two thousand and seventeen trying to get a car and more money from bradley to make this go away know it was actually at missile evidence under a financial motive here so this court's ruling on direct appeal that this evidence was part of the rape shield that's a correct ruling because this  a sexual assault case but had direct appeal counsel connected the dots for us