and for the development of the facts regarding equitable tolling now there is one difference as i understand it and i it appears to me that in your brief you concede that at least as to statutory tolling your five months too l case be remanded to the district court for further factual development when we do with the knowledge in the record that this thing petitioner during the time when he might allegedly have been incompetent filed petitions on october twenty fourth two thousand and december eleventh two thousand the mere fact that he filed petitions doesn't mean that he was mentally competent to be able to proceed in the state court but i don't know we have a cause element here in other words the the limitation has to have prevented the individual from filing it has to have  prevented him from being able to file during that period we don't additionally ask if he had enough time regardless of that period being taken out of the statute of limitations because he had helped some other individuals and those those petitions were denied because they were practically in comprehensible week we didn't really the ability to rather than closing the district courts eyes to the to the allegation laws versus what mark requires that the district court read that allegation and require some further factual development of the record on that issue just on the allegations so long as it is fide under penalty of perjury no further evidence is necessary i believe that's that's correct the further along the line there could be things in his central file in his medical separate medical file regarding the many types of medications he was on another thing these are things rather put forward to show that he's incompetent the final titian not not that he's not one hundred percent  to judge but i think that a person who has the communication skills of a fourth grader when he writes something like that you have to take that into consideration that the fact that he said he was a literate when he's apparently writing and apparently it wasn't by someone else doesn't mean that he understands what a literate means but that's only slightly so i can write but i don't understand what it means didn't cause a literacy it caused him to be unable to communicate effectively with the court house we have a little over a village you might want to reserve i do was mentioning the fact that he was single celled it doesn't mean that he was actually incompetent it means that he may have had mental conditions which based on the experience that had reading petitions a lot of prisoners do have mental concerns and that would not be a reason to inadequate in fact they were denied on the merits and i think that shows that he was able to effectively communicate with the court because the court had addressed his concerns and tonight his claims were on this record is common that there were only words in the six when his petition became trapped when his decision became final and two thousand in fact in those detentions he never mentioned mental incompetence or mental defect it wasn't until a filing in two thousand and two that he said and by the way i have mental incompetence due to my illiteracy in laws there were there was a section thirteen sixty eight hearing to determine competency and between psychiatry psychologists and the judge it was finally determined that laws was determine was competent but there was a large body of evidence to discuss his competency and his mental ability that's not true in this case at all i think laws says that there must be circumstances th claim of mental incompetence and in this case there are no circumstances that support his claim other than the statement by him in two thousand to six years after he'd been filing petitions all this time and like i mentioned before in laws there were no filings for six years that goes to his incompetent it goes to his unconsciousness or inability to file in this case petitioner did file he filed prolifically never mention the mental hearing because if true it would excuse his not filing for six years right correct now is it your position that the petitioner in addition to the petition should file some of the davis and some same type of thing in this case there is a i doubt that that mr laws was truly unconscious for six years these petitions must be read when you're dealing with mentally incompetent  people with mental illness must be read liberally and must be read with an understanding of the situation in the prison and so when they said that the metal incompetence rendered him illiterate the i think that the court in opposing counsel may be making too much of the new nie on the merits of the state petitions it's not in california if there is no writ issued and a of california and now it is a very standard time period for denying all sorts of petitions that house relatively little mare i'm sorry my post my postcard denial it it takes time to get this postcard